30 March 2011

Dáil Debates

• Priority Questions: Spouses of those on DA not eligible for CE Schemes
• Priority Questions: Age eligibility age for Disability Allowance
• Priority Questions: Waiting times for Social Welfare Appeals
• Adjournment Debate: Cuts to SNAs at St. Raphaels, Celbridge, Co. Kildare

Parliamentary Questions

• Reverse cuts to Disability Allowance
• Dormant Accounts Fund

DÁIL DEBATES

• Priority Questions: Spouses of those on DA not eligible for CE Schemes

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien (SF): asked the Minister for Social Protection the steps she will take to rectify the anomalous situation whereby the spouses of persons in receipt of disability allowance are not allowed to avail of community employment but rather they must apply for a separate payment in their own right and wait a year before they can qualify for a CE place, in view of the fact that no recognition of their period of unemployment is given if their spouse was claiming for them.

Deputy Joan Burton (Minister for Social Protection): The Deputy will be aware that an unemployed person who qualifies for the community employment programme under jobseeker’s allowance, jobseeker’s benefit or farm assist but who does not wish take up an offer may be able to transfer the eligibility to his or her spouse. In this regard, qualified adult dependants aged 25 and over of eligible persons may avail of the spousal swap option. This involves the person exchanging his or her community employment place with his or her dependant, who will inherit the age and entitlements of the eligible person. This ensures that there is no loss incurred in their relative entitlements as a result of the exchange.

Under the current means by which the eligibility criteria for community employment are implemented, the position outlined for spousal swaps differs for disability allowance. This relates to the intrinsic link between the disability payment and the claimant. It is also unlikely that any financial advantage would result for a claimant in receipt of disability allowance as the earnings disregard would not be applied to his or her spouse’s income given that the rehabilitative nature of the employment can only apply to the claimant. Under community employment eligibility criteria it is a matter of policy that adult dependants of persons with a disability are not eligible unless they become eligible in their own right, as is also the case for all other eligible categories. This generally means a 12-month period in receipt of a qualifying payment.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF): This is a strange situation because if the qualified adult dependant claimed in his or her own right, the State would probably incur greater costs in the longer term. I am trying to get recognition for qualified adult dependants. The number of people who would avail of opportunities for retraining or community employment is not large. I ask the Minister to investigate whether it is possible to change the rules on spousal swaps for those on disability allowances or qualified adult dependants who are stuck in this situation or at least alter the qualifying criteria for community employment schemes so that qualified spouses can take up places even where they have no time in their own right.

Deputy Joan Burton:  Disability allowance is a means tested payment for people with specified disabilities whose incomes fall below certain limits and who are between 16 and 66 years of age. Eligibility is subject to a medical examination and a means test. Under the community employment eligibility criteria, adult dependants of persons in receipt of disability allowances are not considered eligible unless they qualify in their own right. This rationale is based on the fact that the eligibility of the disability claimant is specifically linked to his or her physical or other disability and, therefore, is not transferable under the other rules to a dependent spouse, partner or cohabitant.

The circumstances giving rise to eligibility for disability allowances are considered to be significantly different to those of persons in receipt of jobseeker’s benefit, jobseeker’s allowance and farm assist, in which regard swaps are facilitated. I undertake to review the matter and will ask my officials to examine it in the context of the announcements we hope to make in respect of the jobs budget.

• Priority Questions: Age eligibility age for Disability Allowance

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (SF): asked the Minister for Social Protection    if she will maintain the age of eligibility for the disability allowance at 16.

Deputy Joan Burton (Minister for Social Protection): In general, the social welfare system processes payments from the age of 18. The minimum age limit of 16 was established in 1953 as a qualifying condition for the disabled person’s maintenance allowance and the age limit was maintained when that scheme was replaced by the disability allowance scheme in 1996.

The review of the disability allowance scheme published in November 2010 recommended increasing the qualifying age to 18 years. The review noted that the payment of disability allowance at age 16 carries with it the risk of creating a dependency on social welfare from a very young age and can generate disincentives for people to take up education, training or employment opportunities. A study conducted on the impact of the payment of the allowance from age 16 on retention rates in second-level education indicated that it would, at a minimum, act as a negative factor if a path out of education was being considered.

The payment of the allowance at such a young age also gives rise to issues relating to the control and use of the payment, about which views have been expressed by parents. In some circumstances, parents and guardians will be the financial agents for people with disabilities in the 16 to 18 age group, and the income may effectively be regarded as household income rather than as an income support for the individual concerned. Equally, there are issues with regard to the capacity of some vulnerable 16 year old people with disabilities to manage funds of this type. The question also arises as to whether it is appropriate, in terms of equity of treatment of all social protection recipients, to pay disability allowance at age 16 but other means-tested working-age schemes at age 18.

While cognisant of the findings of the review, I am conscious of the concerns raised some years ago when a proposal to increase the age limit to 18 was introduced and subsequently withdrawn by a previous Minister in my Department. Notably, there was an issue with regard to the expectations of families that additional income support would arise once their children had reached the age of 16. I will consider all of the issues involved carefully before reaching any decisions on this sensitive matter.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF):  I note what the Minister has stated. The value-for-money review of the disability allowance scheme is quite a detailed report which was produced by the Department only in November 2010. The recommendations have far-reaching consequences, and while some of the proposals are positive, others are potentially negative, including the one highlighted in the question, which would affect many families with a member who is eligible for disability allowance at the age of 16. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this but, even allowing for the extension of domiciliary care allowance to the age of 18, which would make up some of the shortfall, the change would result in a cut in income of up to €440 per month for some households. This is a substantial amount for any family; in fact, it would halve the social protection payment for the claimants involved. Domiciliary care allowance is €309 per month, compared to the maximum personal rate of disability allowance, which is €188 per week.

Does the Minister share my concerns? I am not asking for a review of a review, but I ask her to consider, when implementing the review, an increase in the domiciliary care allowance to eliminate the shortfall, which in certain circumstances could be €440 per month.

Deputy Joan Burton (Minister for Social Protection):  I thank the Deputy for his comments. When the Joint Committee on Social Protection recommences, this may be a matter that the Deputy, with all his experience, can raise for discussion.

There are 1,926 recipients of disability allowance aged between 16 and 18. This represents about 1.9% of the total number of people receiving disability allowance. The total spend on disability allowance for people between 16 and 18 is €18.8 million. As the Deputy said, it is a significant amount of money. One must also take account of the projected increase in the number of recipients. We are talking about the difference between paying the domiciliary care allowance until the child concerned reaches the age of 18 and the cost of transferring people to disability allowance at age 16.

Any change to the qualifying age would affect new claimants only — that is, existing claimants would continue to receive disability allowance even if they are under 18. Domiciliary care allowance will be paid up to age 18; currently, as the Deputy said, it ceases at age 16. There are currently 3,600 children of domiciliary care allowance recipients who are aged 14 or 15, and all of these claimants would migrate to disability allowance on reaching the age of 16. I would be concerned if there were a disincentive to a child involved staying on in school, education or training. This is a sensitive issue and should be discussed at greater length, perhaps at committee level when they have been established.

• Priority Questions: Waiting times for Social Welfare Appeals

Deputy Sandra McLellan (SF): asked the Minister for Social Protection the current average and longest waiting times for social welfare appeals against refusals under the various schemes.

Deputy Joan Burton (Minister for Social Protection): The current average times to process social welfare appeals, by scheme, based on figures for 2010 are given in the detailed table following this reply, which I will not read out unless Deputy Kelleher really wants me to. The figures include cases revised by deciding officers of the Department in addition to those decided by appeals officers. There are no figures readily available for the longest waiting times in each scheme. 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 weeks, while the average time to process an oral hearing was almost 46 weeks. These processing times are calculated from the registration date of the appeal to the date of its finalisation. These 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 the oral hearing. In order to be fair to all appellants, the appeals are dealt with in strict chronological order.

There has been a very significant increase in the number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office between 2007, when the intake was 14,070, and 2010, when the intake rose to 32,432. The Department estimates some 30,000 appeals will be lodged this year. The Department has made nine additional appointments to the office in recent weeks. Of these, three appointments are permanent assignments and six are temporary assignments for a period of two years, subject to review. These assignments will augment the three 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, eight retired appeals officers, equating to a further three full-time officers, have been assisting on a strictly temporary basis with the backlog of appeals and it is intended that they will be employed until the end of this year.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh:  Domiciliary care allowance is listed in the table. Before the election, I was told the appeals took an average of 49 weeks, almost a year. My office contacted the Department the week before last and was told that appeals submitted 17 months ago are now being assessed. A period of 17 months is unacceptable. Domiciliary care allowance is a small payment but for many people, especially when a child’s disability has come to light, it can be quite overbearing. Waiting for a refusal of such payment is ridiculous. Should a review of the scheme be conducted? Is the Minister aware of the success rates of appeals? An increasing rate of successful appeals indicates a problem earlier in the system that should be addressed. The deciding officers at the initial phase need to spend more time examining the case files so they do not clog up the system later. In this case it is a small payment but in other social welfare cases people’s lives depend on the payment so they can pay bills, maintain a roof over their heads and ensure their children can go to school. I acknowledge the changes that have been brought about. Hopefully the temporary and permanent staff will have a substantial impact. An appeals process of three or four months, rather than nearly a year, is acceptable

Deputy Joan Burton: The current information on appeals is 29.7 weeks, a lengthy period of time in respect of domiciliary care allowance. Parents applying for this allowance for the first time can encounter significant difficulties. I told Deputy Kelleher earlier that, on taking up office, one of the first things I arranged to do was to meet the people in the management of the Social Welfare Appeals Office, with a view to seeing how we could deal with the appeals in a much speedier fashion. One part of that is the appointment of additional staff and I am confident that it will result in a significant improvement in the situation.

The second issue, being examined by the chief appeals officer, is to speed up the process by having more summary decision making. The required information must be in order so the appeals officer is in a position to make a decision because 42% of appeals are ultimately granted, which is a very high rate of successful appeal. If we could get more of the appeals dealt with by summary examination of the files and decision by the appeals officer that would significantly reduce the time, particularly when those people will go on to have an oral hearing and will have the appeal granted in any event. I will return to the Deputy on the matter. I am sure we will talk on the matter again. I am aware of the difficulties experienced by people in the appeals process, in particular with important assistance such as the domiciliary care allowance. Today I was involved in the launch of the national advocacy scheme which is under the auspices of the Citizens Information Board. There is a very enthusiastic team of people in five regions in the country who will assist in advocacy. That will be a valuable additional source of information and advice for people involved in domiciliary care allowance appeals and requests.

• Adjournment Debate: Cuts to SNAs at St. Raphaels, Celbridge, Co. Kildare

Deputy Catherine Murphy (I):  I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity to raise this serious matter on behalf of some of the weakest people in society. While the issue relates to people in my constituency, the consequences of this decision go beyond St. Raphael’s special school in Celbridge, County Kildare.

This Friday, a total of 4.5 special needs assistants will be made redundant from the school. An appeal has been made by the school to the National Council for Special Education but that appeal has been rejected. The school has been informed that this decision is final, yet children who commenced in the school last September have not yet been seen by a special needs assistant and they will be deeply affected by the redundancies. Some of the children have been categorised as having profound disabilities. It is said that a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. These children have varying care needs. They also have educational needs. We take our ability to communicate for granted, but these children and their parents know what it is like for that skill to be absent.

Not everyone is born with the same range of skills and talents. Some of the children who have been affected by the cuts are non-verbal. Some are making good progress since they commenced in St. Raphael’s. One parent told me that prior to going to the school, the only responses her child could make was to scream or to cry. Now that child can identify a glass of water or a food item, and this has made a profound difference to the lives of the whole family.

I ask that a proper independent appeals mechanism be put in place with parental input as a right. They did not have an input into the appeal made by the school. Article 42 of the Constitution states the family is the primary and natural educator of the child, yet there is no provision for the family to be involved in the appeals process. This is a grievance which concerns people.

This is an issue of natural justice. These children have not been assessed and this is wrong. I ask that at the very least, until the special educational needs organiser can assess these children and their needs, the decision on redundancies would be deferred.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn):  I thank Deputy Murphy for raising this issue as it gives me an opportunity to clarify the position on the matter raised by her which is of considerable importance, especially for those directly involved.

The Deputy will be aware that the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, is responsible, through its network of local special educational needs organisers, SENOs, for allocating resource teachers and special needs assistants, SNAs, to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in allocating such support.

St. Raphael’s special school is a designated school for children with moderate general learning disability, although the school also caters for some pupils who have severe levels of learning disability. I understand the school has 53 pupils enrolled and has 11 teachers, including a principal, and 20 special needs assistants. This results in an overall staffing to pupil ratio of one staff member per 1.7 pupils in the school, nearly one to one.

The nature of the disabilities of the children attending this school means they have significant education and care needs. This is reflected in the high level of staffing and SNA support which has been allocated to the school. The NCSE has advised my Department that it considers this level of staffing to be sufficient to meet the special educational and care needs of all the 53 pupils enrolled in the school, including the five pupils specifically referred to by the Deputy.

I also wish to advise the Deputy that the NCSE has issued a circular to all schools advising of the SNA allocation process for the 2011-12 school year. A key feature of the amended scheme will be to provide for an annual allocation of SNA support to eligible schools. The NCSE will consider applications for additional SNA support in the context of this process for the 2011-12 school year. Schools will engage with the NCSE in this regard ahead of the next school year and the NCSE will review the SNA staffing requirements for schools, taking into account all the students who will be attending school from September next and any new students the school intends to enrol. As such, the overall SNA allocation for St. Raphael’s special school will be reviewed for the coming school year in this context. It is open to schools to contact their local special educational needs organiser should they have any queries in this regard.

The reduction in a number of SNA posts in St. Raphael’s special school during the present school year relates to a nationwide review of all schools’ SNA allocation which has been carried out by the NCSE in recent years. My Department requested the NCSE to review all SNA posts nationally to ensure that SNA posts were allocated to schools in line with the care needs of the pupils and that any excess posts would be withdrawn. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the criteria governing the allocation of such posts were properly met.

It is important to understand that SNA allocations are not permanent. The level of SNA support allocated to a school is increased or decreased as pupils who qualify for SNA support enrol or leave a school. They are also decreased where a child’s care needs may have diminished overtime. In other words success may result in the SNA support being deemed to be no longer required.

The programme for Government clearly states that education will be a priority for the Government and that we will endeavour to protect and enhance the educational experience of children, young people and students. To that end, we will endeavour to protect front-line services in education. However, the fiscal position is extremely difficult and the country is effectively in receivership. It is necessary to ensure that educational services are delivered within the resources available. I intend to prioritise and support special educational services, though I cannot revisit the previous Government’s decision to place a cap on the number of posts available under the special needs assistant scheme. It should be noted however, that there are 10,575 posts available nationally under the SNA scheme to provide support for eligible children. This should be seen in comparison with 10,543 SNA posts in place at the end of December 2010 and 10,342 posts at the end of 2009.

It is considered that with equitable and careful management and distribution of these resources there should be sufficient posts to provide access to SNA support for all children who require such care support to attend school in accordance with my Department’s criteria.

My Department and I will be glad to consider any suggestions from school management or parent representative organisations as to how the allocation of SNA resources can best be managed within the context of the overall limit on SNA numbers that has been established. In this regard I am committed to making whatever improvements are possible to the resource allocation system. I thank the Deputy once again for raising this matter.

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

• Reverse cuts to Disability Allowance

Deputy Martin Ferris (SF): asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the cuts to disability payment rates introduced by the previous Government in budget 2011 and if so, when.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): This Government takes up office in the context of a profound banking, fiscal and jobs crisis and the decision to seek external financial assistance which has been provided by the EU and the IMF. This crisis has been caused by the reckless mismanagement of the economy by previous Governments. 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.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. Accordingly, the appropriate levels of social welfare rates will be considered in the context of budget 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. In this regard, the programme for Government contains a commitment to maintain social welfare rates.In the meantime, the Government’s priority is to develop a strategy to allow job growth and sustainable enterprise. This is central to any recovery strategy. The Government will, over its first 100 days, introduce and resource a series of measures designed to reduce unemployment and get Ireland working again. These will include measures to significantly increase the number of training, education and work experience opportunities as well as a wide range of other initiatives. I look forward to developing these with my colleagues over the next few weeks so that they can be announced and implemented as soon as possible. 

• Dormant Accounts Fund

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan (I): asked the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs the funding available through dormant accounts and her plans for applications and distribution. Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald):  The Dormant Accounts Acts provide for an annual transfer by credit institutions and insurance undertakings of monies in accounts determined to be dormant into the Dormant Accounts Fund (DAF). Since its establishment in April 2003 to the end of February 2011, the transfers to the DAF have totalled some €589m, which includes interest earned of some €35m. Funds reclaimed in that period by account holders amounted to approximately €208m.Allocations from the DAF — in accordance with Part 6 of the 2005 Act — are focussed on programmes or projects to assist:1. the personal and social development of persons who are economically or socially disadvantaged;2. the educational development of persons who are educationally disadvantaged; or3. persons with a disability.The value of the DAF at the end of February 2011, net of liabilities, was some €52.5m. This figure excludes €49.4m maintained in a Reserve Account to meet future reclaims by account holders and to cover expenses associated with the operation of the DAF.

The Deputy may be aware that, in the light, inter alia, of the reduced levels of funding available for disbursement from the DAF, proposals had been under consideration by the previous administration to dissolve the Dormant Accounts Board and to make appropriate arrangements for the transfer of its functions to my Department. I anticipate that this and related matters relating to future disbursements will be considered by Government in due course. Further details of projects to which funding has been allocated to date and a summary of the status of the DAF are available on my Department’s website at www.pobail.ie/en/DormantAccounts.

BACK TO MAIN DÁIL DEBATES & QUESTIONS PAGE