Vol. 397 No. 7
11 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Social Welfare the guidelines which have been issued to social welfare officers in relation to the implementation of regulations governing new educational opportunities for the unemployed; and if he has established a means of monitoring take up of this scheme around the country.
46 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Social Welfare the guidelines which have been issued to social welfare officers in relation to the implementation of regulations governing new educational opportunities for the unemployed; and if he has established a means of monitoring take up of this scheme around the country.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 46 together.
The Social Welfare (Availability for Employment) Regulations, 1989, enable certain unemployment assistance applicants to engage in a full-time, second level course of education by day and at the same time be deemed to satisfy the statutory condition of being available for work. Claimants availing of the new arrangements continue to receive unemployment assistance and are required to attend weekly at their local office or signing centre to prove unemployment. The regulations were made in December 1989.
In January 1990 all employment exchange and employment office staff were circulated with details of the regulations and the conditions for eligibility, namely that the claimants should be in receipt of the long-term rate of unemployment assistance, aged 21 years or over and participating in a second level course of education at an approved centre leading to a recognised certificate.
A claimant who intends to engage in a full-time course of education at second level is expected to notify his or her local office in advance. The application is then referred to a deciding officer to determine that the qualifying conditions are satisfied.
As the new arrangements came into effect from December 1989 only, the take up so far has been limited. However, I am confident that when the new academic year commences in September next there will be a very sizeable number who will come forward to avail of the scheme. Take up will be monitored by periodic returns from each employment exchange manager with more regular monitoring beginning next September.
I thank the Minister for the detailed nature of his reply. This is a very important course and it is vital that it be publicised.
In view of the fact that the course is now up and running, what effort is the Minister making to ensure that more than 200 — the figure he gave me in December — out of the 250,000 unemployed will participate in the education opportunities scheme? What effort is he making to publicise the courses? What kind of second level courses are being approved? What kind of certificates, what courses of study will be turning up? Have guidelines been given to the local officers or are they required to come back with specific applications which are cleared at some other point? The more publicity we can give to this course the better, either through our efforts or through the Minister telling me some of his plans to publicise it more directly from his Department.
The conditions are that they must be in receipt of long-term unemployment assistance, aged 21 or over, apply in advance, participate in a course of education at second level and the education course must be in an approved centre and lead to a recognised certificate. There have been no difficulties so far and I do not envisage difficulties. Most of the approved centres are former centres of second level education.
Would a private institution qualify?
Yes, a private institution would qualify once it was an approved centre at which there was bona fide learning at second level.
The 200-240 mentioned by the Deputy refers to the other scheme and that is functioning on a more formal basis in the 12 centres. I will give further attention to publicising it as widely as possible. We have leaflets on it, of course. I believe there is a great deal of scope for development, and next year we should be able to increase very substantially the numbers who will participate. I met the Dublin City VEC about this question and they told me they were interested in this development and would be able to provide 1,000 places. I hope to meet directly with more of the VECs and colleges throughout the country to make sure they understand this and get it functioning as urgently as possible. I agree with the Deputy it is very valuable.
The Minister said "courses leading to qualifications and certificates". Presumably they could be group, intermediate and leaving certificates?
Yes, they are all part of it.
Could it also lead to development of skills, for example, a typing course et al?
That is right, leading to certificates and so on.
13 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, he has to reduce the qualifying age for an old age non-contributory pension from 66 to 65 years of age; and the estimated cost of this to the Exchequer in a full year.
Social welfare retirement pension is payable at age 65 and old age pensions, contributory and non-contributory, are payable at age 66. The question of a reduction in pension age to 65 years will be one of the issues to be addressed by the National Pensions Board in the context of their report on the future development of pension provision generally. I expect that this report will be available later this year.
The net cost of a reduction in pension age to 65 is estimated to be of the order of £30 to £35 million in a full year.
I did not hear the Minister's reply. What board did he refer to?
The National Pensions Board.
In the 1973-77 era the then National Coalition Govenment, with no reference to national pension boards in four consecutive years, reduced the non-contributory old age pension age from 70 to 66. Surely it is a political issue, a Government decision, so why not do it? It would be a recognition of the services people have given to the country. It is almost 15 years since there was any movement in the age limit. I ask the Minister to make a decision to reduce it to 65 years. Will he consider that without referring to boards and committees? That is only an excuse for not doing it.
It is not really. If the Deputy had been here, as the other Deputies were, he would have heard that the question of pensions and the future of pensions is being considered——
I have been listening on the monitor.
I meant our earlier discussions.
I have been listening on the monitor.
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
The National Pensions Board are considering a number of the issues which are still outstanding and their report this summer will be particularly important in that it will deal with all these interrelated factors. The Deputy points to the fact that the age was reduced between 1973 and 1977. He will be well aware that that was when we had benefits of our membership of the EC when for the first time we did not have to pay for the milk. Initially at that time the taxpayer was saved over £30 million in 1972-73 terms. As part of the arrangements for going into the EC, that money ws directed into social welfare. We have concentrated on bringing more people into the scheme and we have brought all the self-employed into it. That was our first step. This question raised by the Deputy remains to be considered in a future budgetary context.
Will the Minister not agree that in view of the improvement in the economy because of the consensus politics we have had in this House over the past few years, these people in particular, the older and poorer sectors, are entitled to some recognition of that improvement?
In some countries at this stage they are increasing the ages because, as the Deputy probably knows, people are living much longer and it is estimated that in future they will live considerably longer. The National Pensions Board will report on that in the summer and the matter can be considered at that stage.
That does not sound very encouraging.
We have been making a great deal of progress in the area.
The Minister is now removing some of the anomalies particularly in regard to invalidity pensioners. He is tending to move towards giving an equality of income to people at 65. Deputy Deasy's question is not before time.
Of course, any time a Minister moves he has to move in a budgetary context, as the Deputy will appreciate. I have removed anomalies which existed in that area and I am sure Deputy Deasy appreciates that. The question should be considered further in a budgetary context.
The Minister should show some compassion.
14 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of disability benefit claims referred to medical referees in 1989; the average waiting period for an appointment to see a medical referee; the number of decisions by medical referees that were in conflict with the original medical certification; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
There were 86,410 disability benefit claimants referred for a medical referee examination in 1989. In 21,345 cases the claimants were deemed to be capable of work.
When a case is selected for examination by a medical referee the claimant is usually seen within a couple of weeks and is given at least a week's notice. Where a person is found to be capable of work and appeals against this decision, he is referred to another medical referee for further examination.
The time taken can, however, vary with the location, as the Department try to ensure that persons are examined at locations as convenient as practical to where they reside, it can depend on the frequency with which the particular area is visited and the fact that the examination has to be carried out by a different referee from the first one. Every effort is made to arrange the examination in these cases in the shortest possible time.
This is an area in which all Members have problems. In view of the fact that medical referees do not heed medical evidence when they are checking patients, is the Minister satisfied that people have been refused disability payments although it was proved afterwards that they were incapable of working? Public representatives and others have to make strenuous efforts to ensure that the Department have regard to some of the medical evidence which was disregarded initially.
I had a case of this kind this morning, indeed, I have them most mornings. If we want the system to operate independently we must establish medical referees so that if people are not satisfied with one they may seek a second opinion from another. The last avenue is to go to an appeals officer. There are all sorts of reasons for wrong decisions being made and we query them every so often. I have often asked how decisions have been arrived at but we must trust the professional people who are doing the job even though our own views may differ from time to time. In most cases the local general practitioner is invited to submit a report on the case and he can also enclose a specialist's report if one is available. Very often people know they are not well and, although they have been to a specialist, they do not furnish a report until the second examination. There will always be some cases that will fall through the net but, broadly speaking, the system works well.
Is the Minister aware that there is very deep concern regarding this area? There is a feeling that there is a slapdash approach to examinations. What instructions are given to medical referees in relation to how they conduct examinations? Has the Minister any proposals to end the practice whereby medical examinations are of a most cursory nature and do not seem to relate to the problem in the medical certificate? For example, I heard of an outrageous case of a cursory physical examination of somebody who has a certificate for a nervous breakdown. Are there general guidelines, training or instruction?
Are they medically qualified?
This is a largely statistical question and, consequently, I do not have all the relevant information. All medical referees are fully qualified. They have to have at least six years' experience in practice after their basic qualification and quite a number of them have a higher qualification.
Does that include appeals officers? Are they medically qualified?
Appeals officers are not medically qualified and that is the value of the system. When a person is first examined and is not satisfied he can appeal to a second medical referee and if that fails it goes to the appeals officer who will examine the decision in an administrative way.
I do not have any doubt about referees' medical qualifications but all such people have the ability to give an opinion and, as the Minister is aware, opinions always differ. Unfortunately, doctors dealing with social welfare cases tend to agree with one another. Is the Minister aware of the fact that medical referees do not want to see medical evidence, X-rays and so on and that they do not use the facilities of a medical institution to assist them in making a decision? None of us would dispute their opinion if it was based on a proper examination. I hope that the chief appeals officer, set up under the new Bill, will address some of these problems.
As I said, this matter is outside the scope of the question. There will always be some dissatisfaction with decisions but the medical adviser is there to look at more serious cases and to decide whether there is a need for further examination. I will communicate the Deputy's views to the relevant section.
Is the Minister aware of the Ombudsman's intervention in some cases?
The Minister should visit the catacombs under the Department of Health. It is an appalling place where walls are falling down and other features to which I cannot refer in the House. It is an extraordinarily inhospitable setting for any kind of examination, especially a medical one.
That disposes of questions for today.
