Vol. 394 No. 4
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to end an anomaly whereby persons employed on social employment schemes, although paying tax and PRSI, are not eligible for family income supplement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
138.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will allow participants on social employment schemes to qualify for family income supplement payments.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 138 together.
The social employment scheme, SES, is aimed at providing part time employment to assist unemployed people, particularly the long term unemployed, to re-enter the labour market. The purpose of the family income supplement scheme, FIS, on the other hand, is to create an incentive for full time workers with families, who are in low paid employment, to remain at work. Its purpose is essentially different from the SES and to extend entitlement to FIS to persons on the SES would involve fundamental changes in the FIS scheme.
Allowances under the SES scheme are payable at a standard rate of £65 for a single person and £92 for a person with an adult dependant. Improvements to the scheme, which were announced recently, have extended a dependant allowance of up to £10 per child to SES participants. As a result of this change, all SES participants now receive a payment which is in excess of their entitlements under the unemployment assistance scheme. For example, an SES participant with an adult dependant and three child dependants will now receive a total allowance of £122 per week, as against an entitlement under long term unemployment assistance of £107 per week. This represents a substantial improvement in the situation of SES participants with two or more child dependants, who previously received less than their UA entitlement.
In addition, SES participants are free to engage in other work or activities during their time off. Such earnings have no effect on their payment from the SES.
In the light of the improved situation of SES participants with families, the payment of FIS, in addition to child dependant allowances is not considered necessary.
The Minister in his reply indicated that the main purpose of the family income supplement scheme is to keep people in work. In his report to the Minister's Department, Dr. Blackwell indicated that when social welfare incomes get very close people tend to opt for social welfare. Would the Minister not accept that a person in any employment on an income of £65 or £92 per week, plus allowances for dependants, and engaged in the same number of hours of work as a person on the social employment scheme would qualify for family income supplement on every other grounds?
This question was examined by the Government fairly recently. As a result of this examination, it was considered that the most appropriate thing to do, which would be of most benefit to the family, would be to provide £10 per child to people on the social employment scheme. This decision was arrived at by the ministerial committee on employment. I am aware it was announced following the tabling of the Deputy's question but I think the Deputy would agree that this goes a long way towards meeting the basic requirement as seen by the Deputy. This would be a more efficient and effective way of dealing with that problem. It is a major step and it will have a big influence on social employment scheme participants as we head towards next year.
I accept that the decision announced by the Minister for Labour represents an improvement in the scheme but is it not the case that the groups representing the unemployed did not seek that kind of improvement but rather inclusion in the family income supplement scheme? The arguments they put are relevant. In every way under the terms of the scheme, apart from the fact they are on a social employment scheme, they qualify for the family income supplement. Would he not consider bridging the gap and allow them qualify for family income supplement in view of the fact that they pay tax and PRSI just like any other worker?
I have explained to the Deputy the decision which has been taken. It is a major step. It was arrived at following the deliberations of the ministerial committee at which different Ministers looked at the matter to identify the best step that could be taken at this time. It was felt that this decision would go towards meeting the situation. I believe it does and will prove very beneficial. As a matter of interest, both moves were recommended by different groups of people.
We are still waiting for you, Minister.
Would the Minister agree that people going on these SES schemes or courses believe for all intents and purposes they are taking up a serious job and that many people are ignorant of the fact that the FIS scheme does not apply to them? Even with the payment of £10 per child, they are still at a marked disadvantage. The only real solution would be to give those on SES schemes and those on FÁS courses the same benefits which are given to low income groups. Finally, is the Minister aware that not only are they ineligible for the FIS supplement but many of them have lost their medical cards? For example, a single man is allowed to earn £65 under the SES scheme——
The Deputy is going into a lot of extraneous matter.
In fact under the means test and under the health board he should only be allowed earn £62 per week.
That is a separate question. We are concerned with improvements in the schemes we operate. The improvements which we make are often taken into consideration by either the local authorities or the health boards. However, in relation to family income supplement for instance, we have succeeded in getting some of the health boards not to take that into account as income for assessment for medical cards.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason recipients of disability benefit and invalidity pension are being constantly recalled for medical examinations as in the case of persons (details supplied) in Dublin 11; and whether he is concerned that this amounts to harassment in some cases.
Medical control is a necessary part of the administration of the disability benefit and invalidity pensions schemes to ensure that claimants have the required degrees of illness or disability for entitlement. This control is exercised through medical referees to whom claimants are referred from time to time for examination for the purpose of obtaining second medical opinions as to incapacity for work.
The factors which determine how cases are selected are broadly the nature and duration of the illness and any recommendation regarding re-examination which a medical referee might make having examined a person.
In the cases referred to by the Deputy, the persons concerned had previously been examined by medical referees from my Department, who recommended that they be referred for further examinations after a specified period to confirm their incapacity for work.
There is no question of harassing individuals — it is simply a question of being clear as to a person's continuing entitlement to payment.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Sorry, Deputy this refers to a specific case. I cannot allow any extension of that.
I am familiar with the case because Deputy Durkan gave me the details.
That does not alter the situation. It refers to a particular case.
I intend to confine my questions to that.
This is unusual, Deputy.
Will the Minister indicate whether it is normal practice when a person has been declared entitled to invalidity pension, which by its nature suggests that they would be incapable of working for life——
Sorry, we are having an extension of the subject matter——
It is not.
I thought the Deputy was referring to the specific case.
I am referring to the specific case of the number 2 person invalidity pension there, who has been called for medical examination twice, two months after being awarded an invalidity pension which is meant to be a pension for life.
Is the Deputy familiar with the name?
The name is Johnson, Mr. Paul Johnson of Blanchardstown.
That is not my information.
There are two cases there.
There are two cases.
There is a Mr. Kelly from Ballymun and a Mr. Johnson. Is the medical control in this case Gestapo tactics?
Not at all. If the Deputy would like I will give her the history——
Since names have been mentioned, let us be judicious about it.
Without going into detail I will give the history. It is a fact that the person concerned has been found variously capable and incapable at different stages. When a medical examiner makes a note to have the person re-examined in so many months, that is one of the factors that contributes to a person being re-examined.
A person on an invalidity pension?
The person concerned has been on invalidity pension from June 1986 and is currently in receipt of pension at the rate appropriate to a married man with three qualified child dependants. He applied for a transfer from disability benefit to invalidity pension on 11 June 1986 and at that stage a medical referee said he was not permanently incapable of work and decided not to award him invalidity pension. He appealed against this and was re-examined on 30 January 1987 by a different medical referee who also expressed the opinion that he was not permanently incapable of work and requested that he be referred for a further examination in six months time. That is quite normal. When a year from the date of the original application had elapsed it was considered that he satisfied the permanently incapacitated condition as set out in SI 218 of 1970 and he was awarded invalidity pension from 12 June 1986. Regular medical reviews have been carried out since he was awarded invalidity pension and he was found capable of work by a medical referee on 2 October 1989 and was disallowed from 26 October. He appealed again against that decision. Most of the examinations as the Deputy will see are as a result of appeals. He appealed again and was examined by a second medical referee who at that stage expressed the opinion that he was incapable of work and requested that he be referred for examination in a further two months.
They put him back on pension which is meant to be a lifetime pension.
It is not actually.
What is the qualification for one to be considered permanently incapable?
The pension applies for a reasonable period——
On the basis of permanent incapacity.
It is not lifetime.
I am afraid we cannot devote an inordinate amount of time to this question.
The pension is not necessarily for life, but for a reasonable period.
But you have to be permanently incapacitated.
If the medical referee at the time says that the person should be examined in two months, then that is what will be done.
Question No. 18 please.
The pension was restored from 7 December 1989 and that is the position.
Can I ask a brief supplementary on that?
I thought we had devoted a long time to this question.
The long time that the Minister has devoted to the reply indicates that, and I would ask him if he does not think it is extraordinary behaviour, when a person who is declared permanently incapable of work and is awarded a pension, that he has twice now been called back within two months to be re-examined. Does it not make a joke of the availability of invalidity pension which the Minister made so much of in his earlier replies in relation to disability pension?
If there is a suggestion by the first medical referee in the case——
Why give him a pension then?
If the first medical referee says the person is now capable of going back to work——
He has a deteriorating arthritic condition.
——and he appeals against that and is given a second medical examination and if the second medical referee says that he is not capable of going back but that somebody should examine the person in question in two months' time, that can happen. These are professional decisions taken by medical referees.
Question No. 18 please.
That is the way the system operates.
Can I ask one question on this?
Yes.
I would bring to the Minister's attention the fact that persons who are rejected for social welfare after medical examination by a medical referee are told that they can appeal and present fresh evidence which is usually required from a consultant, but these people have to wait seven to ten months to see the consultant, and meanwhile they are being discriminated against. The Minister might look into that.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry the Deputy was not here but the Chair has devoted a considerable amount of time to this question.
It is specific information.
Very good, Deputy, but I want to pass on to another question.
Will the Minister indicate the extent of the medical examination which takes place, whether there is a general examination, a superficial examination or if an examination takes place in all cases where persons have been referred to the medical referee?
The examination is a professional matter for the medical referee in question who will normally have information presented by the person or his GP as to the nature of the incapacity. Deputy O'Connell raised a question about the kind of information that is used at an appeal. I have found that people may not go in particularly well prepared to the medical referee and, on appeal, will ensure that there is fuller documentation on the illnes and win the appeal. There are also letters from the doctors which are very brief, and even getting a more comprehensive letter from the doctor may change the position.
Two medical referees can differ in their opinion. If a second medical referee is called there will obviously be a more comprehensive examination at that stage because the decision is being appealed.
