10 May 2011

Dáil Debates

• Priority Questions: Impact of EU/IMF deal on social welfare payments
• Priority Questions: Compensation for depletion of funds of people who are Ward of Court
• Priority Questions: time to process Carers Allowance

Parliamentary Questions

• Impact of EU/IMF deal on social welfare
• Disallowed Social Welfare claims in 2009 and 2010
• Breakdown of social welfare appeals
• Habitual residence rule discriminates against persons with disabilities
• Widen disabled drivers scheme to include people with Down syndrome
• Charge applied to disabled persons in County Donegal for travel to their training day or day centres under the rural transport initiative
• SNA numbers 2009 vs. 2010

DÁIL DEBATES

• Priority Questions: Impact of EU/IMF deal on social welfare payments

Deputy John Halligan (I): asked the Minister for Social Protection the specific cuts to child benefits, disability allowances and other social welfare payments signalled in the draft deal with the EU/IMF and in view of the latest research which indicates that 620,000 persons or 14.1 per cent of the population are already at risk of poverty and the expert belief that this figure would be much higher if it were not for social welfare payments, the way she will implement further cuts whilst simultaneously attaining the target set out in the current national agreement Towards 2016 of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016.

Deputy Joan Burton (Minister for Social Protection): The challenge for this new Government is unlike any faced before. The priority of this Government is to get our economy moving, restore confidence, fix our banking system and support the protection and creation of jobs. The success of our economic plans will lay the foundation for the rest of our agenda for change and the jobs initiative being announced today is the first step in this regard. It is important to state that the most recent memorandum of understanding with the EU-ECB-IMF does not provide for specific cuts to child benefits, disability allowances and other social welfare payments. The overall aim of the memorandum is to ensure that public finances are sustainable and, to this end, the State must pursue a determined deficit reduction strategy. This will impact on current expenditure across all Departments, including the Department of Social Protection. The Government is committed to tackling Ireland’s economic crisis in a way that is fair and balanced and which recognises the need for social solidarity. This is explicitly reflected in the commitment in the programme for Government to maintain social welfare rates. I am fully aware of the key role the payments made by the Department play in the social and economic life of this country and in preventing poverty. This is illustrated in the annual survey on income and living conditions carried out by the Central Statistics Office. The latest available report shows that in 2009, more than 91% of the average gross household income of households in the lowest income decile was made up of social transfers. The percentage of gross household income made up of social transfers remained above 50% up to and including the fourth decile where 65% of gross household income was made up of social transfers. In addition to reducing poverty, these social transfers enable households to purchase goods and services in the local economy thereby sustaining jobs and economic activity at a higher level than would otherwise be the case. Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

While the payments made by my Department have these very positive economic and social effects, there is an ongoing necessity to curtail expenditure in 2012 and in later years. This is necessary for many reasons, not least so that we can continue to make social welfare payments at appropriate levels, sustaining social cohesion and treating people with dignity. Any changes to the wide range of schemes and services operated by my Department will be considered in a budgetary context later this year. This consideration will be informed by the comprehensive review of expenditure currently under way, which will be completed by September.

Deputy John Halligan: The Minister has one of the largest portfolios and there are many questions on the agenda today that affect many people. I am absolutely appalled the Minister is the only Government Deputy present today. I hope the media will take that into consideration.

New research by Social Justice Ireland shows that poverty in Ireland is at an all time high. Since 1987 the income of the top 10% high earners has increased to the detriment of the least well off in society. One in ten children now lives in consistent poverty, a scandalous figure. That figure increased by half last year under the Fianna Fáil Government, largely as a result of its social protection policies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  The Deputy only has six minutes. He must ask a question.

Deputy John Halligan:  I will not need six minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  The six minutes are for all contributors.

Deputy John Halligan: Will the Minister make a commitment today that there will not be any more cuts in welfare benefits, jobseeker’s allowance, disability pensions and carers’ allowances to ensure the less well off will be protected? In opposition, the Minister opposed all cuts to social welfare payments and advocated the protection of the less well off. Will she give a commitment to the hundreds of thousands who will not be able to afford breakfast in the morning and who will send their children to school without proper clothes, heating or food in their bellies that there will be no further cuts in social welfare?

Deputy Joan Burton:  I thank the Deputy for his remarks and I share his concerns about children who are experiencing poverty; all Members share that concern. I reiterate the commitment in the programme for Government on social welfare rates by both parties but resources are constrained. Before the budget for 2012, there will be a poverty impact study by the Department and in addition, a comprehensive review of expenditure is under way and it is to be completed by September. That will contribute to the decisions made in the budget for 2012.

Deputy John Halligan:  When the Minister was on the Opposition benches, she spoke about eliminating poverty by 2016. The elimination of poverty is about increasing welfare payments for the least well off, but it starts with not reducing those payments any further. I listened intently to the Deputy in opposition when she was an advocate for the less well off. I would like her to stand by that now for the sake of those worst affected by the economic downturn who are suffering horrendously on social welfare so at the very least, their income will not be further reduced.

Deputy Joan Burton:  The most important anti-poverty strategy the country has ever had will be to get people who are unemployed through no fault of their own back into a job. There are those in every town and village in Ireland who never expected or wished to be unemployed but who have lost their jobs or businesses. The primary job of this Government is to ensure people get back to work. That is the strongest anti-poverty measure any Government can put in place.

• Priority Questions: Compensation for depletion of funds of people who are Ward of Court

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF): asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will amend the means test rules for disability allowance and secondary payments to extend eligibility for these to wards of the courts whose funds were depleted at an exceptional rate during the period of 2007 to 2009 while under the care of the State as to do so will go some way towards compensating the wards for the loss of units which cannot be recovered and which was outside of their control.

Deputy Joan Burton (Minister for Social Protection): In determining entitlement to disability allowance, the social welfare code provides that the first €50,000 of capital is disregarded in the means assessment. Thereafter, weekly means are assessed at €1 per week for each €1,000 of capital between €50,000 and €60,000; at €2 per week for each €1,000 of capital between €60,000 and €70,000 and at €4 per week for each €1,000 of capital above €70,000. These arrangements are more generous than those which apply to other social assistance schemes in recognition of the fact that persons in receipt of disability allowance may not have had the opportunity to accumulate savings or other income through participation in employment and this disability may hamper a person’s ability to live independently. The Deputy will be aware that funds which are held for the benefit of wards of court are private funds under the control of the Courts Service. These funds, which amounted to approximately €1.137 billion at 30 September 2010, are managed in a fiduciary capacity by the Courts Service on behalf of more than 18,000 beneficiaries, of whom some 2,300 are wards of court. It is my understanding that while court funds were impacted by the turbulence on world financial markets, particularly in 2008, very few actual losses were incurred in individual cases and that all funds have fully recovered to pre-financial crisis levels.

Where the position of an individual has been impacted upon, it is open to that person, or his or her representatives, to apply for disability allowance or to have the level of payment reviewed in cases where he or she is already in receipt of the allowance.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh:  Wards of court are, by definition, vulnerable and the State owes them an enhanced duty of care. The State, through the Courts Service, is responsible for the administration and investment of funds which many wards of court depend on for their living expenses. The fund is not a realisable asset in the sense of a means test. At the beginning of the economic downturn these funds lost significant value and consequently the length of duration of the award. Considering their special status and the State’s responsibility to them, I have asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to compensate the wards of court for these losses in an effective manner. He has denied that the loss exists.

The Minister, Deputy Burton, has repeated that denial to some degree by claiming that the value of all funds has since recovered. That is a misrepresentation of the facts, however, because units of the funds need to be sold when money is needed to make payments to wards of court. When the value of the funds decreased between 2007 and 2009, there was a dramatic increase in the number of units that had to be sold to generate the same income. That diminished the number of units in the funds at an exceptional rate and prohibited true recovery. As a result, the funds cannot possibly provide for wards of court for the duration that was originally intended.

While I accept the Minister for Justice and Equality is directly responsible, I ask the Minister, Deputy Burton, to intervene by making a compensatory gesture to the adult wards of court on behalf of the State. I suggest she should make a disability payment available to them from now on. Such a payment would supplement and stretch their funds and thereby ensure they last for the intended period of time.

There is a precedent for looking for exceptions in means test rules. For example, compensation and awards, and the income arising from the investment of such moneys, are not taken into account when people in certain groups are means tested. I refer, for example, to those who contracted hepatitis C or HIV from blood products, to those with a disability arising from the thalidomide disaster, or to those who received awards from the Residential Institutions Redress Board. I ask the Minister to consider making a similar exception in the case of wards of court to compensate them on their losses. As such a measure would affect a small number of people, a major cost would not accrue to the State.

Deputy Joan Burton:  Court funds that are held for the benefit of wards of court are private funds under the control of the Courts Service. Through its offices in the High, District and Circuit Courts, the service has responsibility for the management and investment of funds in court. The courts are subject only to the Constitution and the law and are independent in the exercise of their judicial functions. It is not open to me as Minister to comment in any way on the operation of the courts. However, I want to point out that the Courts Service operates a fairly conservative investment policy. Despite the impact of the credit crisis, all funds have fully recovered to their levels before the financial crisis.

I reiterate that if a ward of court wishes to apply to the Department of Social Protection, he or she is welcome to do so. If a ward of court is at a financial loss and consequently qualifies for a higher rate of payment - or if he or she qualifies for disability allowance for the first time because his or her means have been reduced - the appropriate level of disability allowance will be paid to him or her. My Department is responsible for that aspect of the matter. As the Deputy will appreciate, the courts themselves are independent in the operation of their functions.

• Priority Questions: time to process Carers Allowance

Deputy Catherine Murphy (I): asked the Minister for Social Protection    the average time it is taking to process carer’s allowance applications; the number of applications awaiting decision; if there is a plan to reduce delays;

Deputy Joan Burton (Minister for Social Protection): The average time taken to award a claim for carer’s allowance in the first quarter of 2011 was 12 weeks. A total of 3,815 applications were registered in the first quarter of 2011 and 3,883 were processed in the same period. Some 4,509 applications are awaiting a decision at present. Approximately 51,000 carer’s allowance claims are in payment. I acknowledge that the time taken to process carer’s allowance claims is not satisfactory but I am satisfied that the Department is taking appropriate steps to resolve the situation. It recently commenced a major service delivery modernisation project to improve the efficiency with which it processes applications from clients for carer’s allowance. This involves the development of information technology functions and associated business process reorganisation. It is anticipated that the new system will introduce significant processing efficiencies and a quicker and more responsive service to the customer. Accordingly, the project is being given high priority. It involves a significant level of time and commitment from the relevant staff in the Department. This has had a short-term negative impact on claim processing times. I am pleased to say the modernisation project is on target. The first tranche of new carer’s allowance claims will be processed under the new system from July. Although the new systems and processes will facilitate a significant improvement in overall processing times, individual claims may continue to take some time to process. Entitlement to carer’s allowance is based on satisfying medical, means and residency conditions. In determining entitlement to the allowance, in certain cases unavoidable time lags are involved in making the necessary investigations and inquiries to enable accurate decisions to be made. Delays can also arise if those applying for the allowance are not in a position to supply all the necessary information in support of their claim. The staff and other resources available to the Department are regularly reviewed with regard to the workload. The Department monitors available resources against workload on an ongoing basis with a view to ensuring claims are processed as quickly as possible. The action taken may include providing for flexibility in the application of staff resources in accordance with seasonal or temporary fluctuations in workload and using overtime where appropriate. The position is being kept under continuous review. In the meantime, if a person’s means are insufficient to meet his or her needs while awaiting a decision on a claim, he or she can apply for a means tested supplementary welfare allowance payment from his or her community welfare officer.

Deputy Catherine Murphy:  My understanding of the monitoring of information systems is that when the term “business process reorganisation” is used, the entire process is thrown out and a new one is introduced. Is that what is taking place in this instance? The Minister suggested that there is an overlap between one processing system and another. The key issue is what the ideal time will be. That is one of the questions I have. I accept that if a person does not provide sufficient information, it is not possible for his or her claim to be dealt with within the ideal time. There can be variations. Does the Minister envisage that an ideal time for making a decision will be determined? She is aware that if one encounters uncertainty when leaving work to care for somebody with a sudden illness, it can take a long time for one to deal with such matters, which can be very stressful. It appears to me that the refusal rate is quite high. Having heard anecdotal evidence and discussed this with some of my Independent colleagues, it seems that there is a high level of success on appeal. Has the Minister examined that in her Department? Can she ascertain whether there is a variation between the approach to carer’s allowance and the approach to other kinds of allowances provided by the Department?

Deputy Joan Burton:  In 2010, the average time it took to award a claim for carer’s allowance was eight weeks. Some 18,212 applications for carer’s allowance were made and some 16,629 claims were processed in that year. The main reason for the deterioration in the processing time is that major modernisation work is ongoing. That work will be completed and the new system will be started by July of this year. My experience of the Department of Social Protection is that investment in the modernisation of information technology facilities achieves results such as improvements in processing times. The Deputy asked about levels of refusal. Some 16,574 new claims were received in 2009. Some 5,776 claims were refused in that year. That represented a refusal rate of 34.8%. As I said, some 18,212 new claims were made in 2010 and 6,972 were refused. That represented a refusal rate of 38.2%. One of the reasons for delays in processing all social welfare applications, including for carer’s allowance, is the provision of insufficient or inaccurate information. As the Deputy noted, owing to changing circumstances people often make applications while under pressure and it may take time to obtain all the relevant information and present it properly. I am optimistic that when the new system is operational, we will be able to achieve the previous processing times and perhaps improve on them. The process would be facilitated if people had more complete information when they made an application.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF):  Does the Minister accept that greater use should be made of the review process as opposed to the excessively arduous appeals process? Many of those who apply for carer’s allowance do not understand the documentation or the requirement to include details on the level of care they provide. Does the Minister agree that waiting times, especially for appeals, are unacceptably long across all schemes? I do not know if she is aware of today’s missive from the Minister without Portfolio, Deputy Brendan Howlin, which indicates that the Department of Social Protection will be allocated an additional 22 staff by the end of the year. This figure does not take account of the transfer of community welfare officers from the Health Service Executive. Does the Minister agree that 22 additional staff will not be sufficient to address the delays in processing social welfare applications?

Deputy Catherine Murphy:  What is the average processing time for an appeal? What difference will the review process make? If an appeal is successful, the relevant payment will be backdated to the date on which the application was submitted and the Exchequer will not make any savings. In many cases, people are being put through the wringer unnecessarily.

Deputy Joan Burton:  I expect completion of the information technology modernisation programme will significantly improve processing times from July onwards. I did not hear the announcement made today by the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin. I accept that an additional 22 staff is small in the context of the number employed in the Department, which currently stands at approximately 5,000. However, since my appointment I have signed in nine additional appeals officers. We had a discussion previously at Question Time on the need for better quality information in processing applications and to use reviews rather than full appeals. Last week I met senior staff and many other employees in the appeals section, including inspectors and staff manning the telephones. I am aware that the section is of particular concern to Members of the House. Given the condition of the economy, staff in the office must contend with providing testing and exacting services for members of the public. Nevertheless, everybody in the appeals structure is determined to give citizens the best possible service. As I indicated, the additional nine appeals officers should produce a significant improvement and reduce processing times.

Deputy Catherine Murphy:  What is the average processing time for an appeal?

Deputy Joan Burton:  I do not have detailed information on appeal times, but I will send it to the Deputy.

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

• Impact of EU/IMF deal on social welfare

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF): asked the Minister for Social Protection    the position regarding the programme for Government’s commitment to maintain social welfare rates in view of the commitment to the EU and IMF that it will reduce social expenditure year on year starting in 2012; if she will make a commitment that the eligibility rules for existing social welfare schemes and payments will not be further restricted in advance of the comprehensive report due from her by the end of 2012 under the latest EU-IMF deal; if she will make a commitment that the eligibility rules for existing social welfare schemes and payments will not be further restricted in advance of the comprehensive report due from her Department by the end of 2012 under the latest EU-IMF deal

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The challenge for this new Government is unlike any faced before. The priority of this Government is to get our economy moving, restore confidence, fix our banking system and support the protection and creation of jobs. The success of our economic plans will lay the foundation for the rest of our agenda for change and the jobs initiative being announced today is the first step in this regard. Sustainable public finances are a prerequisite for economic stability and growth. To this end, the State must pursue a determined deficit reduction strategy. We believe it is appropriate, in order to enhance international credibility, to stick to the aggregate adjustment as set out in the National Recovery Plan for the combined period 2011- 2012. This Government is committed to tackling Ireland’s economic crisis in a way that is fair, balanced, and which recognises the need for social solidarity. This is explicitly recognized in the commitment in the Programme for Government to maintain social welfare rates.

At the same time, there will be an ongoing necessity to curtail expenditure in 2012 and in later years. Any changes to the wide range of schemes and services operated by my Department will be considered in a Budgetary context later this year. This consideration will be informed by the Comprehensive Review of Expenditure (CRE) currently underway which will be completed by September.

In addition, as provided for in the most recent Memorandum of Understanding with the EU/ECB/IMF, my Department will build on its recent studies on working age payments, child income support and disability allowance with a view to producing a comprehensive programme of reforms that can help better targeting social support to those on lower incomes, and ensure that work pays for welfare recipients. Consultation with stakeholders will take place. A progress report will be made by end-December 2011 and a programme of reforms will be submitted to Government at the end of the first quarter of 2012.

• Disallowed Social Welfare claims in 2009 and 2010

Deputy Catherine Murphy (I): asked the Minister for Social Protection    the number of disallowed social welfare claims for the years 2009 and 2010 which were subsequently overturned on appeal; the categories of claims into which they fall;

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): I am informed by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that the breakdown of the number of disallowed social welfare claims for the years 2009 and 2010 which were subsequently overturned on appeal by Appeals Officers and the categories into which they fall is given in the table. Overall, the number of appeals determined by Appeals officer which had a favourable outcome for appellants (i.e. either allowed or partially allowed) were 3,695 (37%) of 10,027 determined in 2009 and 4,747 (27%) of 17,499 determined in 2010. The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

• Breakdown of social welfare appeals

Deputy David Stanton (FG): asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 161 and 162 of 19 January 2011, if she will provide a breakdown of the total number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office for each payment respectively in 2010 and to date in 2011; the number awaiting decision per payment; the current average processing time for each scheme by summary decision and by oral hearing; the number of staff employed by the office in 2010; the number currently employed;

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Figures in regard to the numbers of cases received and awaiting decision, by scheme for 2010 and 2011, the average time taken to process appeals by summary decision and by oral hearing by scheme type and the number of staff in the Social Welfare Appeals Office are given in the tables attached to this reply. I am informed by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that the overall average waiting time for an appeal dealt with by way of a summary decision in 2010 was 27.4 weeks, while the average time to process an oral hearing was 45.6 weeks. These processing times are calculated from the registration date of the appeal to the date of its finalisation and include all activities during this period including time spent in the Department for comments by the Deciding Officer on the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant and any further investigation, examination or assessment by the Department’s Inspectors and Medical Assessors that is deemed necessary. A considerable period of time is added to the process when an oral hearing is required because of the logistics involved in this process. In an effort to reduce these processing times, the Department has made 9 additional appointments to the office in recent weeks. These assignments will augment the 3 appointments made to the Office in 2010, bringing the total number of Appeals Officers serving in the office to 29. In addition, since July 2010, 8 retired Appeals Officers, equating to a further full-time officers, have been assisting on a strictly part-time basis with the backlogs of appeals and it is intended that they will be employed until the end of the year. In addition to the provision of extra staff, more emphasis is now placed on dealing with appeals on a summary basis so as to increase productivity. As a result, the number of appeals dealt with by way of oral hearing was reduced from 59% in 2009 to 31.5% in 2010. As a result of the various initiatives taken, a total of 17,499 appeals were finalised by Appeals Officers in 2010 in comparison to 10,027 for 2009. When revised decisions and withdrawn cases are taken into account the total number of cases finalised in 2010 was 28,166 in comparison to 17,787 for 2009. There has been a very significant increase in the number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office since 2007 when the intake was 14,070 to 2010 when the intake rose to 32,432. In order to be fair to all appellants, appeals are being dealt with in strict chronological order. I am assured by the Chief Appeals Officer that she is keeping current processes under continuous review with a view to achieving a more effective throughput of appeals, while ensuring that any progress does not conflict with due process in terms of the rights of appellants and adherence to the requirements of natural justice.

• Habitual residence rule discriminates against persons with disabilities

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (SF): asked the Minister for Social Protection her views that the habitual residence rule discriminates against persons with disabilities.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton):  The habitual residence condition was introduced in order to ensure that a person, who has had no attachment to the work force since arrival in Ireland and whose habitual residence is elsewhere, would not be entitled to payment under certain exchequer-funded schemes on arrival in Ireland. Decisions concerning habitual residence are subject to five factors which have been laid down by the European Court of Justice, and which are now incorporated into our domestic social welfare legislation. The five factors are:

(a) the length and continuity of residence in the State or in any other particular country;

(b) the length and purpose of any absence from the State;

(c) the nature and pattern of the person’s employment;

(d) the person’s main centre of interest, and

(e) the future intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances.

I am satisfied that the habitual residence condition is achieving its intended purpose, allowing access to our social welfare schemes to persons who are genuinely and lawfully making Ireland their habitual residence. I am not aware of any particular difficulties arising regarding the habitual residence condition and persons with disabilities. If the Deputy has particular cases in mind, I will have these examined.

• Widen disabled drivers scheme to include people with Down syndrome

Deputy Brendan Griffin (FG): asked the Minister for Finance if disabled driver VRT exemption qualification criteria will be widened to include passengers with Down’s syndrome;

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan):  The Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Scheme provides relief from VAT and Vehicle Registration Tax (up to a certain limit), and exemption from motor tax, on the purchase of an adapted car for transport of a person with specific severe and permanent physical disabilities. The disability criteria for these concessions are set out in the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations 1994. To get a Primary Medical Certificate, an applicant must be permanently and severely disabled within the terms of these Regulations. Some 13,500 people benefited under the scheme in 2010 at an overall estimated cost of €55 million. I have no plans to widen the exemption qualification criteria.

• Charge applied to disabled persons in County Donegal for travel to their training day or day centres under the rural transport initiative

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (SF): asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if his attention has been drawn to the charge applied to disabled persons in County Donegal for travel to their training day or day centres under the rural transport initiative and his plans to either remove or advise removal of this additional financial burden on them following repeated budget cuts to their income. 

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar):  I understand that the transport services in question are not provided under my Department’s Rural Transport Programme but are operated under contract with the Health Services Executive (HSE), to whom the question of charges for those services should be addressed. The Free Travel Scheme of the Department of Social Protection applies to all services operated under the Rural Transport Programme.

• SNA numbers 2009 vs. 2010

Deputy Gerry Adams (SF): asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of special needs assistant whole time equivalent posts funded by him in the school year 2009-10 and also the same figures for 2010-11; the savings if any of the reduction in WTE posts between these two years;

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn):  The number of wholetime equivalent Special Needs Assistants funded by my Department was 10,342 in the 2009/2010 school year and 10,543 for the 2010/2011 school year. The figure quoted is the December figure for each year. The Deputy will note that there has in fact been an increase in the number of SNA posts. The National Council for Special Education (NCSE) is responsible, through its network of local Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENOs), for allocating special needs resources to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in allocating such support. The NCSE will continue to support schools, parents, children and teachers and special needs assistants will continue to be deployed to schools to meet children’s needs in line with my Department’s policy.

BACK TO MAIN DÁIL DEBATES & QUESTIONS PAGE