Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 2000

Vol. 521 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Disability Allowance.

Mr. Durkan

I am disappointed the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs is not present. I am sure he has compelling engagements elsewhere and I appreciate and understand the calls that fall on a Minister at all times. However, is it coincidental that the Minister seems to be reluctant to come into the House to address Adjournment debates? I am disappointed. At this time, in the life of this parliament, Ministers would do well to address the subject matter of their respective Departments. I hope that will be taken on board by the Ministers who do not wish to address Adjournment debates.

On the subject matter of this Adjournment debate, a practice has existed in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs for some years, where a person who has qualified for a payment and is in receipt of that payment over a period of years, on reaching pension age transfers to old age pension. A different qualification process in terms of income and means might result in a lower rate of payment than that which they had enjoyed previously. In such cases the payment has always been given at the higher rate.

The practice at the moment in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs is that a person who has been in receipt of the old-fashioned disabled person's maintenance allowance, which became disability allowance in recent years, and who wishes to transfer to old age pension on reaching pension age will find that he or she may be assessed under a means test that will give him or her a much lower rate of pension. There is one serious anomaly in this of which the Department and the Minister do not seem to be aware. It is that the undertaking given by the previous Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Minister of State at that Department to the effect that the changeover in respect of disabled person's maintenance allowance to the Department of Social, Community and Fam ily Affairs would not militate against the interests of those concerned, is not happening.

I have cases in my constituency where a new means of assessment is being carried out on such applicants. If they are found to qualify for lower amounts on reaching pension age, having spent considerable time in receipt of disabled person's maintenance allowance, now disability allowance, it is deemed that they should receive the lower payment. That is an absolute disgrace. The Minister who is responsible should be ashamed of himself. I have spoken to him about this and he informed me he cannot do anything, that it is the deciding officer's decision. It is the Minister's responsibility. If he has not the guts to take that decision he should resign from his office. The reality is that all deciding officers' decisions are subject to check and cross-check. Everything is subject to the natural course of justice and every decision is subject to the practice established over the years in the Department. All decisions in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, as in many other Departments, are subject to social welfare law. What I suggest is in accordance with social welfare practice and established practice over several years. It is an absolute scandal that at a time when the Celtic tiger is roaring ahead at an unprecedented rate there should be such a begrudging attitude towards those who have serious disabilities, and who qualify for a payment on the basis of that disability, that they are treated in such a shabby fashion.

I do not wish to be personal about this. It has nothing to do with politics as a previous speaker said in relation to something else, but it is an insult to the House that the Minister is not present to reply to the debate. He should be here. That is his job and that is what he is extremely well paid for. Without disrespect to the Minister present who is doing a job and standing in, it is the responsibility of another Minister. I sincerely hope the indications of arrogance now appearing in this Administration are not sustained for too long.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I have heard the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs called many things but I have not heard him called arrogant. I do not think the Deputy means it.

The matters which are the subject of this debate are, as the Deputy is aware, related to the transfer of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the transitional provisions which applied at the time of this transfer. Responsibility for the administration of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme transferred from the health boards to the Department on 2 October 1996 when the allowance was renamed disability allowance.

The Deputy will be fully aware that the operation of the former disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme was the subject of much criticism. The variation in the application process was one of a number of problems with the scheme which were highlighted by many Deputies, representative groups and by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. The commission recommended that all disability payments should be provided for in legislation which makes it clear that there is a legal right to payment.

The transfer of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs meant the scheme was brought within the scope of social welfare legislation. Accordingly, national standards apply so as to provide a legal entitlement to payment where the claimant fulfils the relevant conditions. There is also a right of appeal to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office. In addition, since taking office, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs has introduced a range of improvements in the eligibility and means test criteria under the disability allowance scheme.

With the improved eligibility criteria and the improved administration there has been a significant increase in the numbers in receipt of the allowance from 40,463 in June 1997 to 51,500 at the end of May 2000. This is clear evidence of the improvements which have been brought about in the provision for those at whom this scheme is directed.

There has not been any departure from commitments given by the Minister for Social Welfare at that time or the regulations that applied since the transfer of disabled person's maintenance allowance occurred. When the scheme was introduced, the transitional arrangements provided, inter alia, that the rate of disability allowance would be no less favourable than the rate of disabled person's maintenance allowance at the date of transfer. These arrangements facilitated the transfer of beneficiaries from one scheme to the other without having to apply under the new scheme and without interruption of payment. In practice this meant that no person who transferred from disabled person's maintenance allowance to disability allowance could be worse off by the application of the regulations on the date of the transfer.

The transitional arrangements did not, however, confer ongoing rights in cases where the medical condition of the applicant would not justify ongoing entitlement or where there was a material change in the recipient's means or circumstances. These provisions are limited to the duration of the claimant's entitlement under the disability allowance scheme. They do not extend to subsequent entitlements arising under other social welfare schemes, such as old age (non-contributory) pension, where the normal eligibility criteria, as provided for in the relevant social welfare legislation, would apply.

In all the Department's schemes there is a review mechanism to ensure that entitlement conditions continue to be satisfied. Continuing entitlement under the disability allowance scheme is dependent on the person satisfying both a means test and the medical eligibility criteria and this is assessed through a process of selective and periodic review of appropriate cases. In all such review cases the persons concerned are informed of the decision and the reasons for it. They are also advised of their right of appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.

The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs has asked me to apologise to Deputy Durkan and to the House for his inability to be here this evening.