Vol. 472 No. 2
21 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the backlog and delay in processing the disabled person's maintenance allowance transfers within his Department; and the advice and information services available to people still awaiting pension books. [18597/96]
32 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of additional staff recruited to administer the transfer of the disabled person's maintenance allowance from health boards to his Department; the regions in which these additional staff were taken on; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18607/96]
42 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Social Welfare in relation to the new disability allowance, the way in which it is assessed if somebody exceeds the allowance limit under the rehabilitative allowance, for example, if all the amount is allowed under the rate or if it is a percentage of the amount which is allowed. [22173/96]
47 Mr. Flood asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will confirm the transfer of the administration of the disabled person's maintenance allowance to his Department; the number of additional staff appointed in his Department to administer the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18610/96]
55 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement on the mechanism for the transfer of the disability allowance. [18611/96]
57 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that serious inconvenience is being caused to former recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowances who have been transferred to his Department's disability allowance which is payable by personalised order books, cashable only at post offices; if he will alter this arrangement to enable the order books to be cashed in a similar way to the former disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22262/96]
59 Mr. N. Treacy asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether the transfer of the disability allowance to his Department from the Department of Health has gone smoothly; and the amount which persons under the rehabilitation employment section are allowed to earn without it affecting their allowance under the new regulations recently published in view of the fact that the amount under the disabled person's maintenance allowance was £35.20. [22172/96]
65 Mr. Lenihan asked the Minister for Social Welfare the regulations and guidelines, if any, available for the new disability allowance following the transfer of the disabled person's maintenance allowance from the health boards to his Department. [18560/96]
69 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether each recipient of the disabled person's maintenance allowance will receive the various schemes which they were entitled to from the Department of Health in view of the fact that this scheme has been transferred to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18590/96]
79 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will review the qualifying criteria for disabled person's maintenance allowance in order that a person who is in the care of an institution for part of each week only will receive at least a part payment of disabled person's maintenance allowance. [16234/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 21, 32, 42, 47, 55, 57, 59, 65, 69 and 79 together.
The arrangements for the transfer of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme from health boards to the Department were completed successfully and with effect from 2 October 1996, the scheme, which is now known as disability allowance, is the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare.
Regulations made under powers given in the Social Welfare Act, 1996 provided for the introduction of the new scheme of disability allowance. The Act and regulations define the circumstances in which a person is regarded as being eligible for entitlement to the allowance and provide for a number of important improvements in the means test for the allowance. Additional benefits which people were previously entitled to will continue to be payable and the health and welfare services previously provided by health boards will also be available to them.
Recipients of the allowance may earn up to £35.20 per week from employment of a rehabilitative nature without any reduction in their payment. Where a person earns more than £35.20 the allowance is reduced on a pound for pound basis in respect of any earnings in excess of that amount. Persons engaged in rehabilitative employment who retain all or part of their allowance also retain their additional benefits.
The transfer was a very complex process which required the integration into one system of the eight different administrative and computer systems operated by the health boards. As part of the arrangements for the transfer, an information programme was undertaken to ensure that all persons in receipt of disabled person's maintenance allowance and other interested parties were kept informed of the process and the new arrangements. This programme was effective in ensuring that the transfer took place with the minimum inconvenience to existing recipients.
There has been a higher than expected volume of new applications in the early weeks of the scheme. Additional resources are being applied by the Department to obviate any backlogs or delays that might otherwise arise. For people requiring advice or information there is an information booklet available on the scheme. Any person with a specific query or difficulty can contact their local Social Welfare office or the disability allowance section in the Department's headquarters office in Longford.
A total of 45 staff have been permanently assigned to the administration of the scheme. Of these 36 have been assigned to the scheme headquarters in Longford and nine to the medical control section in Dublin. The staff complement will be reviewed in the light of experience of operating the scheme over the coming months.
A number of issues were raised both by individuals and organisations representing people with disabilities during the course of the transfer discussions. Among these issues were the question of payment of the allowance to persons in the care of institutions on either a full-time or part-time basis and the provision of alternative methods of payment to the standard post office payable order books.
I have improved the arrangements for persons in the care of institutions. Previously in such cases an allowance could only be paid for a maximum of eight weeks in any 12-month period. Under the new regulations such persons will continue to receive disability allowance for up to 13 weeks where they are resident in such institutions. The allowance is not payable in respect of part of a week where a person is normally resident in an institution but I am reviewing the position in this regard in the light of the increasing tendency for such people to come home at weekends.
Payments made under the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme by the health boards were, in some board areas, made by cheque and in others by books of payable orders. Payment to recipients of disability allowance is made by personalised payable orders cashable at post offices. A person may appoint an agent on his or her behalf to cash the payment if they are unable do so. I intend to provide a wider range of payment options to recipients of the allowance. The option of payment by electronic fund transfer to accounts in banks and other financial institutions will be offered at an early date
The recently published report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities also contained a number of recommendations in relation to payments for people with disabilities and I will be examining these in the context of reviewing the development of the scheme.
I am satisfied that the transfer of the disability allowance scheme to my Department was achieved with the minimum of disruption to existing customers and that the new arrangements will provide a streamlined and efficient service to people with disabilities.
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I put down the question because I am aware from my constituency work that quite a number of people have not yet received their books from the Department of Social Welfare. I simply wanted an assurance from the Minister that this matter would be dealt with immediately.
My information is that the majority of health board disabled person's maintenance allowance clients had their payments transferred to the Department without hitch and they are now being paid by personalised payment order through the post office of their choice. There were an estimated 200 to 300 cases out of a claim load of approximately 32,000 where problems arose in the transfer process. The primary reasons for these were that payments were not transferred to the post office nominated by the client — in some cases clients changed their choice of post office a matter of days before the transfer; clients disputed the amount being paid or, in cases where no payment was received, that resulted from non-receipt of data from the health boards, human error and books going astray in the post. By and large, however, 96 per cent or 97 per cent of books were issued in good time and order. We regret any inconvenience caused to people as a result of any delay but my understanding is that all those entitled to books on transfer from the health boards have now received them.
The Minister did not answer Questions Nos. 42 or 47.
Is this the question about the way in which means are assessed where a claimant exceeds the allowance limit? Does the question relate to whether all the amount is allowed under the rate or a percentage of the amount is allowed, for example?
Yes.
I do not seem to have the information. It is listed in the numbers but not in the front of the sheet. I do not know why.
Take out the civil servant again.
This is a very complex area. The information I have here is that where recipients are engaged in employment of a rehabilitative nature an income disregard of £35.20 per week is applied. This means that recipients may earn up to £35.20 per week from rehabilitative employment without any reduction in their disability allowance payment. In approved cases, earnings up to this amount will not lead to a reduction in the allowance payable. Clients can earn more than this amount and still qualify for a reduced allowance. The maximum that can be earned in these circumstances at current rates is £99.70 per week. Clients engaged in rehabilitative work who retain all or part of their disability allowance also retain their additional entitlements such as free travel. Most clients involved in rehabilitative employment will have used the services of the National Rehabilitation Board.
Will the Minister answer Question No. 47 tabled by Deputy Flood, which is very similar to Question No. 32 tabled by Deputy Harney? It deals with staffing.
I dealt with the issue of staffing in my reply. I pointed out that there were 45 staff in all. Some 36 of those are assigned to the scheme headquarters in Longford and nine are assigned to the medical control section in Dublin.
Will the Minister explain the logic behind the fact that under lone parent's allowance a client can earn £6,000 per year with a taper of 50 per cent from January 1997 whereas the disabled person's maintenance allowance limit is £35.20 per week? This means that where a client earns over £35.20, every pound he or she earns just gives a pound back to the Department. What is the logic in creating more anomalies and making the system more complicated? Will the Minister also explain whether a person who is engaged in training or education without payment is entitled to disabled person's maintenance allowance? For example, is an 18 year old who is engaged in part or full-time training or education and seriously disabled entitled to disability allowance?
In regard to the question about logic, our system of social welfare has envolved over a 50 year period — we are marking the 50th anniversary of the Department next year — so anomalies will inevitably develop. People develop schemes to serve needs at particular times. In many cases it is not always possible to match them exactly to previously existing schemes, particularly as we seek to introduce all schemes in a way which does not result in financial loss to those already on existing schemes who are transferred to the new schemes.
In transferring the disabled person's maintenance allowance from the health boards the Department of Social Welfare is operating a scheme for which it had no previous responsibility for its administration or development, what the disregards and payment rights were and so on. In taking on that scheme the Department had to match the administrative and computer systems of eight different health boards and centralise them.
That was not the question.
I am answering the Deputy's question.
Why is there a 100 per cent taper for DMPA and a 50 per cent taper for the lone parent's allowance? What is the logic in having two different tapers for two different schemes?
I am coming to the point.
Let us hear the reply. The question has been put.
With no disrespect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister does not appear to understand the question.
I understand the question. I am trying to explain the answer to the Deputy in a way that he will understand.
I will understand.
The task was to take on board the scheme in a way which ensured that no one would be at a disadvantage when it became the responsibility of my Department. When the scheme came on stream we had to ensure that people got their cheques on time. As we know, of the 32,000 recipients there were up to 300 delays and that is unfortunate. I know the Deputy is impatient for me to answer his question but I am explaining that it was necessary for us to concentrate in the first instance on ensuring a smooth transfer of the existing scheme to my Department so that nobody would be without their cheque when the scheme was operated by my Department. That was the first priority and we have done that successfully.
In transferring the scheme it was necessary to make some changes to it to ensure that people did not lose out. If we had applied the normal unemployment means test to disabled person's maintenance allowance, for instance, single people living at home with parents or other members of their family would have lost out because people means tested on disabled person's maintenance allowance when it was administered by the health boards did not have such matters taken into account to the same extent as under unemployment assistance.
The Deputy asked why there is a difference between the lone parent's allowance scheme which will be introduced in January 1997 and the current disability allowance scheme. A new scheme will be introduced in January 1997. We are introducing a one parent family payment which is aimed at encouraging lone parents to take up employment by allowing them to keep a portion of their lone parent's allowance up to a certain earnings ceiling. In time I hope to be able to develop all the means tested schemes to allow people to take up employment where it is possible for them to do so. I hope to be able to do the same in relation to the disability allowance scheme. However, I am afraid the Deputy will have to have a little more patience, given that we have only managed to transfer the scheme to my Department in the last month.
The Minister mentioned electronic funds transfers in his reply. Is he aware of the concerns of people who live on their own in rural areas who have to travel to post offices to get their cheque and cash it and then travel home, and the dangers involved in these journeys? We know how many people were attacked, beaten and in some cases murdered last winter. Would it not be sensible to bring this electronic fund transfer into effect at the earliest possible date, if only to allay the fears of people living on their own in rural areas?
That is a completely separate matter. We are dealing with the question of the disability payments scheme. I have already made it clear that we will provide an electronic fund transfer facility for people on that scheme as quickly as possible. Electronic fund transfer is already available to other categories of people in receipt of social welfare payments and this facility is being extended as quickly as possible.
The Minister mentioned that this scheme was executed with the minimum of disruption. How many people are awaiting back payments as a result of the transfer? There are two on my list going back to February who are quite concerned that back payments have not been made.
The Minister also mentioned that anomalies exist within the scheme. Would he agree that, in introducing the one parent family payment scheme in January, he has introduced two further anomalies? Does that not discriminate against married women who go out to work side by side with single parents, and is the Minister not also discriminating in terms of the application of this disability scheme? Further, the Minister has transferred the function of payment, but the method of assessment has been retained by the health boards. Is the Department making any contribution to health boards towards the cost of the medical staff and others who make assessments?
If the Deputy wants to put down a question about the one parents family payment scheme, I will be more than happy to deal with it. I believe it is a good scheme.
The Minister raised it.
I mentioned it in the context of the question Deputy Ó Cuív asked. If the Deputy wants me to deal in detail with that question. I will be more than happy to do so if he tables a question.
On the question of the backlog, as part of the transfer of the disability allowance scheme, it was agreed with the health boards that new claims received by them after 1 September 1996 would not be processed but would be transferred or referred to the Department of Social Welfare. There were two reasons for this. The health boards would not be in a position to process these claims and put them into payment by 2 October 1996, and the non-processing of new claims during September would give the boards an opportunity to concentrate on completing as many cases as possible which were on hand at the time and reduce the number of such cases being transferred to the Department of Social Welfare on 2 October.
The extent of cases transferred to the Department of Social Welfare, however, has been significant. The number of new applications from 1 September 1996 to 1 October 1996 was 385. The number of new applications from 2 October 1996 to date was 1,481. That is where the backlog referred to by the Deputy has arisen, not in the transfer of existing claims to my Department but in dealing with new claims which came at a time when they were not anticipated. We did not anticipate the significant increase which there has been in the number of applications for disability allowance. We are working as quickly as possible to clear that.
In relation to the question of the health boards continuing to administer the scheme, that is not the case. My Department carries out the means assessment and also the medical assessment. As I indicated in my reply earlier today, we have allocated 36 staff to the headquarters office in Longford to deal with this scheme and nine medical staff in the Dublin medical area to deal with the medical assessments. Decisions in these cases are made by the deciding officers of the Department of Social Welfare.
