Vol. 569 No. 5
9 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of licensed operators who took part in her Department's free travel scheme since 1999; her plans to improve the scheme in view of the number of licences which has issued; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18073/03]
The free travel scheme was introduced in 1967. The scheme is intended to assist older people and people with disabilities to remain independent and active in the community. The scheme also facilitates mobility for those without access to cars, and the greater use of public transport infrastructure, particularly during off-peak times.
From its inception, the scheme applied to the services operated by the CIE Group. The services covered have been extended progressively in recent years and there are now 82 private operators participating in the scheme in addition to the CIE Group services. Most of these private contractors provide services in rural areas. Some 27 of these operators have joined the scheme since January 1999. I am keen to ensure that free travel pass-holders have access to as wide a range of public transport services as possible. My Department is willing to consider applications from any licensed operators who wish to provide passenger services to free travel pass-holders. Participation in the scheme is open to all transport operators licensed to operate a public scheduled service, who are properly insured and hold a current tax clearance certificate.
To address the needs of those marginalised by lack of access to transport in rural areas, 34 community groups have been selected under the Government's rural transport initiative to receive funding to provide innovative community-based transport services, on a pilot basis.
This initiative is being managed by Area Development Management Limited on behalf of the Department of Transport and funding has been provided for this purpose through the national development plan.
As free travel pass holders will benefit from this initiative, I have arranged for up to €500,000 to be made available from my Department this year to help to ensure that they have full access to these pilot community-based transport services. I also intend that free travel pass-holders will be facilitated on Luas services when these commence. My Department has had initial contact with the Rail Procurement Agency in this regard.
Significant improvements have been made in the free schemes, including the free travel scheme, in recent budgets both in terms of the qualifying conditions and the coverage of the schemes. I will continue to review the operation of these schemes with a view to identifying the scope for further improvements as resources permit.
I am aware that the Minister, coming from Donegal, is aware of the problems in rural Ireland. Has she any plans to introduce a voucher system or some other system to enable those in isolated areas to obtain transport? A lady in a small town in my constituency who has to go for hospital treatment has learned that the health board will no longer pay her taxi fares. She has missed many medical appointments. Cases such as this are serious. Has the Minister any plans to introduce a system to deal with genuine hardship cases in isolated areas?
What is the success rate or otherwise of the pilot scheme and does the Minister expect it to become widespread in the future? My final question, which is one the Ceann Comhairle raised many years ago, concerns the use of school transport buses – a major State asset – which are lying idle for long periods each day while schools are closed. This seems to be a waste of national assets which could be used for some of these other purposes.
I am not accountable for nor am I involved in the management of the bus services. It is an issue I am not quite familiar with but it has been discussed on many occasions. Other Departments and agencies should support the people to whom the Deputy refers.
They do not do so.
From what I can ascertain in my short period in office, if other people do not do what they should it lands back on me. In my health board area we have a service every day to all the major Dublin hospitals from Letterkenny and Sligo. People in need who cannot afford a taxi to get to where they have to go are facilitated and the health board has a fund for reimbursements.
The cost of the free travel scheme is €47 million. We have considerably increased the access of licensed operators to the scheme. That has been beneficial, otherwise we would not have had a service of any type. I agree that many people do not get an opportunity to use the service because they may not have access to the mainline rail or bus services.
The rural transport initiative has been successful. When it is evaluated there will be a recommendation to increase it all over the country. It has been helpful and because it is community based people have taken possession of it and communities have been facilitated with the usage of the free travel pass. I will consult with the Minister for Transport when he evaluates the programme over the next two to three years. My experience of the three schemes we have in Donegal is that they are successful because the timetables reflect the needs of the people as opposed to the needs of the transport company.
Does the Minister accept that the free travel pass is completely useless to many people in rural areas? Would she be prepared to look at the possibility of using taxis or a hackney service in regard to provision of a service? In the greater Dublin area there are major restrictions on the use of the pass which particularly affect older people who need to get to hospitals before 10 a.m. At present there are restrictions on the use of the pass up until 10 a.m. Will the Minister examine that situation with a view to resolving it? It is a major issue for many elderly people.
I wish to add to what Deputy Seán Ryan has said. What measures does the Minister intend to put in place to ensure that the service for those with free travel passes is universal? Unfortunately, Bus Éireann does not provide a universal service as the Minister knows from her own constituency where the alternative Lough Swilly service is in difficulty. Pilot schemes are not in operation throughout the country. There are huge swathes of areas where a service does not exist.
The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information from the Minister, not to provide information for the Minister.
The Minister often needs to be led. What measures does the Department intend to put in place to make sure we have a universal application in terms of the free travel pass? At present, the value of the travel pass to one person in the country is far less than the value to someone else. The Government has a responsibility to ensure there is equal value for all.
I appreciate what the Deputy has said. Deputy Seán Ryan will be pleased to hear that one of my working groups from Trinity College completed its report and recommended a number of changes. One thing the group was asked to evaluate was the voucher system. It may be difficult to believe but it did not recommend the system because its usage could be abused and it is difficult to ascertain how it could be administered. I promised we would look at the system again. I will do so and will re-evaluate its usage.
The free travel scheme has evolved since 1967. There have been significant changes, particularly in regard to eligibility with the introduction of companion passes and people with carer's allowance. In regard to restricted access to Dublin Bus there is a situation whereby somebody with a specific illness, particularly a terminal one, can apply to the Department to have the restriction waived. There are quite strict criteria but the facility is there for those with serious illnesses. If the Deputy has a particular case in mind it would be facilitated between the hospital and my Department.
10 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason a care recipient is not brought into the oral hearing to progress the carer's allowance appeal; and the way in which a judgment can be made on the carer's allowance when the carer is brought to the oral hearing and not the care recipient. [18067/03]
56 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason a care recipient is not brought into the oral hearing to progress the carer's allowance appeal; and the way in which a judgment will be made on carer's allowance when the carer is brought to the oral hearing, and not the care recipient. [18076/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 56 together.
In applications for carer's allowance the basic qualifying conditions, apart from a means test, are that the person receiving care must be so incapacitated as to require full-time care and attention and the carer is providing that full-time care and attention. The carer is the applicant and, accordingly, is invariably the appellant against a decision disallowing payment.
Appeals against the refusal of claims for carer's allowance normally require an oral hearing in order to determine the appeal. The carer, as the appellant, attends the hearing but it is not usual for the person being cared for to attend. In many instances the person who is being cared for is not in a position to attend the hearing. In any event, his or her absence should not mean that his or her situation cannot be adequately put forward at the hearing.
In most instances an application for a carer's allowance will have been investigated by an inspector of the Department who will have given the general background to the application and afforded the applicant the opportunity to set out the basis for the claim. This is available to the appeals officer and will usually be gone through at the hearing. In addition, the medical evidence offered by both the caree's own doctor and the opinions of the Department's medical assessors are taken into consideration by the appeals officer. The case will usually revolve around aspects relating to the medical evidence and the facts relating to the extent and type of care provided. All of these matters are established by reference to the inspector's report, the carer's statements and evidence and the medical evidence.
However, many carees are by definition too elderly or frail to attend and for this reason they are rarely summoned. The presence of the caree at the hearing is, therefore, not essential. However, in any instance where a carer wishes to have the caree present there is no difficulty about doing so.
There is provision also for having the person who is being cared for examined by a medical assessor of the Department where this is likely to be helpful and where the caree's doctor has indicated that he or she would be able to attend such an examination. It is accepted that testimony by the care recipient could be helpful in certain cases. Indeed, in his annual report for 2001, the chief appeals officer alluded to the issue raised by the Deputies and stated that, in some cases, they would be able to provide valuable, first-hand testimony.
Ultimately, the question of who should attend an oral hearing is one for the appeals officer but, in general, care recipients who do attend hearings with a view to testifying in support of the carer's appeal are readily facilitated.
Although my name is attached to this question, it was put down by Deputy Ring and I do not know the full background to it. I understand that in the case in question the recipient was refused access to the appeal. He felt strongly that it would have been valuable to the appeal to have been there. I take it from the Minister's reply that there is no objection to that. If that is the case it is up to the person concerned with the appeal to accept the Minister's ruling. I accept the Minister's reply.
11 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason for recent changes made in the back to education allowance scheme; and if these changes meet concerns that have been outlined on the operation of the scheme. [17893/03]
20 Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will review her decision to cut the back to education allowance for students in receipt of unemployment benefit during the summer months and to cut it almost totally for post-graduate courses. [18060/03]
49 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will restore the back to education allowance scheme to its original form; if her attention has been drawn to the hardship that is being caused to many people as a result of changes to the qualification criteria; the current provisions of the scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17909/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 20 and 49 together.
The back to education allowance scheme is a second chance education scheme designed to assist unemployed people and members of other disadvantaged groups who are being held back in their search for employment by a lack of qualifications. A review of the basic purpose underlying my Department's back to education provisions was carried out last year.
In the light of this and of the expenditure constraints facing us this year, the scheme has been revised. In framing proposals to change elements of the BTEA scheme, I was conscious of the need to ensure that payments were focused on those who most need training or qualifications in order to gain a foothold in the labour market. In line with this, payments under the scheme for the summer period have been discontinued for BTEA participants who were in receipt of an unemployment payment, as many students find seasonal work at home or abroad during the summer months.
Of course, participants in the scheme who fail to find employment during the summer may be entitled to unemployment assistance or benefit, subject to satisfying the usual qualifying conditions. All other participants on the scheme, lone parents and people with disabilities, remain unaffected by this decision and will retain payment during the summer period.
The BTEA scheme was also revised in respect of people who wish to pursue certain full-time postgraduate courses, which no longer qualify for BTEA purposes. All of the people concerned are already in possession of a third level qualification and I am satisfied that they have already achieved a good level of academic attainment which should impact positively on their employment prospects.
In a time of financial constraint, I want to ensure that supports are directed at those with the most pressing needs. Those wishing to take up a higher diploma in all disciplines or graduate diploma in primary school teaching will not be affected by these changes. I am satisfied that the new arrangements will ensure that the back to education scheme continues to provide support to those people who are most distant from the labour market and I have no plans to alter these arrangements.
Will the Minister reconsider her changes to the back to education allowance scheme in regard to non-payment over the summer months? She has failed to take into account that many people are on modular courses, for which exams take place during the summer months, in August in particular. Some people have to repeat exams in July and August, a fact which should be considered.
Requiring people who are not lone parents or do not have a disability to go on unemployment benefit, if it applies, causes further complications for people. Asking them to go back into the labour market causes stresses in family life since, in many cases, such people are taking part in the back to education scheme in order to achieve a certain status and improve the lot of their families. I ask the Minister to consider that postgraduate courses may often be two years in duration. She should not make hard and fast decisions, such as those which have left many people in limbo in regard to their back to education entitlements. They entered into what they thought was a contract with the Department, which does not seem to have been honoured.
Is the Minister aware that many of the current BTEA recipients entered the scheme and were told they would be entitled to one postgraduate degree under its terms and conditions? They entered into it on the basis of being able to afford to do so. Will she examine this situation again in the context of people who wish to go on to take up a master's degree? Does she accept that further restrictions on the scheme could put people's potential at risk?
No one on a postgraduate course is affected. Students can finish their course if they are on the scheme.
There can be add-ons sometimes.
In the main, people in the middle of courses will not be affected. I am not in a position to change the provisions with regard to postgraduate courses. People were advised in October but, unfortunately, they did not seem to bother to look at the website or familiarise themselves with the issues.
The scheme has been beneficial. It causes me some concern that people with a primary degree, who wanted to continue with a PhD or a master's degree, have found themselves employment before progressing to the next part of their education. We have done a great deal and the scheme has been beneficial. It has moved people into education, which has been important. Obtaining a third level qualification should adequately address the concern of allowing people to enter the workforce. People have achieved a great deal by participating in the scheme and have been successful. However, I am not in a position to change or reverse the scheme in any other way.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
