Other Questions

Social Welfare Code

Jonathan O'Brien

Question:

24 Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Social Protection the steps she will take to rectify the anomalous situation whereby the spouses of persons in receipt of disability allowance are not allowed to avail of community employment but rather they must apply for a separate payment in their own right and wait a year before they can qualify for a CE place, in view of the fact that no recognition of their period of unemployment is given if their spouse was claiming for them. [6016/11]

Deputy Joan Burton

The Deputy will be aware that an unemployed person who qualifies for the community employment programme under jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit or farm assist but who does not wish take up an offer may be able to transfer the eligibility to his or her spouse. In this regard, qualified adult dependants aged 25 and over of eligible persons may avail of the spousal swap option. This involves the person exchanging his or her community employment place with his or her dependant, who will inherit the age and entitlements of the eligible person. This ensures that there is no loss incurred in their relative entitlements as a result of the exchange.

Under the current means by which the eligibility criteria for community employment are implemented, the position outlined for spousal swaps differs for disability allowance. This relates to the intrinsic link between the disability payment and the claimant. It is also unlikely that any financial advantage would result for a claimant in receipt of disability allowance as the earnings disregard would not be applied to his or her spouse's income given that the rehabilitative nature of the employment can only apply to the claimant. Under community employment eligibility criteria it is a matter of policy that adult dependants of persons with a disability are not eligible unless they become eligible in their own right, as is also the case for all other eligible categories. This generally means a 12-month period in receipt of a qualifying payment.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

This is a strange situation because if the qualified adult dependant claimed in his or her own right, the State would probably incur greater costs in the longer term. I am trying to get recognition for qualified adult dependants. The number of people who would avail of opportunities for retraining or community employment is not large. I ask the Minister to investigate whether it is possible to change the rules on spousal swaps for those on disability allowances or qualified adult dependants who are stuck in this situation or at least alter the qualifying criteria for community employment schemes so that qualified spouses can take up places even where they have no time in their own right.

Deputy Joan Burton

Disability allowance is a means tested payment for people with specified disabilities whose incomes fall below certain limits and who are between 16 and 66 years of age. Eligibility is subject to a medical examination and a means test. Under the community employment eligibility criteria, adult dependants of persons in receipt of disability allowances are not considered eligible unless they qualify in their own right. This rationale is based on the fact that the eligibility of the disability claimant is specifically linked to his or her physical or other disability and, therefore, is not transferable under the other rules to a dependent spouse, partner or cohabitant.

The circumstances giving rise to eligibility for disability allowances are considered to be significantly different to those of persons in receipt of jobseeker's benefit, jobseeker's allowance and farm assist, in which regard swaps are facilitated. I undertake to review the matter and will ask my officials to examine it in the context of the announcements we hope to make in respect of the jobs budget.

Departmental Offices

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

25 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection if there are any planned changes to the locations of local social welfare offices; if she has satisfied herself that considerations of ease of access by local persons have been prioritised and the steps she will take in this regard; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5999/11]

Deputy Joan Burton

My Department currently operates a network of 63 local offices throughout the country. These offices are responsible for administering the jobseeker's payments schemes, one parent family payments and employment supports. They also provide a range of support services to assist groups such as the long-term unemployed, lone parents and people with disabilities to return to the active labour market and an information service for the general public.

The significant increase in the live register over several years has placed additional pressures on our local offices in terms of providing a satisfactory service to the public. The Department accepts that some of its buildings are not ideal. My Department is working closely with the Office of Public Works to acquire new local office accommodation in several locations throughout the country. These include Balbriggan, Swords, Mallow, Killarney, Portlaoise, Loughrea, Castlebar, Navan, Newbridge and Bantry. An annual provision of €2.5 million has been included in my Department's capital budget over the next three years to support the OPW in this task.

In choosing a location for a local office, special consideration is given to its proximity to commercial centres and to other Government and public offices, the availability of public transport for customers and the availability of suitable car parking facilities in the area. In addition all the new offices are designed to comply fully with the statutory requirements for disabled access.

My Department is fully aware of the difficulties experienced by some customers in accessing local offices and is continually streamlining its procedures with a view to minimising the number of visits required by customers to process their entitlements. If the Deputy has concerns about particular offices, I will have them examined.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The Minister mentioned that the Department sought to acquire such buildings through the OPW. Will some of these be rented from companies such as Treasury Holdings, which owe the State a great deal of money through NAMA and so on, or will they be purchased outright by the Department?

The Minister made the point that the Department is aware of some of the changes needed. Currently, some social welfare offices have no cover for those exposed to the elements while queueing in inclement weather. In some cases, toilet access is lacking, and there are no seats in some offices. I hope this will be rectified if new offices are purchased.

I ask the Minister to find out whether there are plans to close the Thomas Street social welfare office and move its clients to the office in Bishop's Square, Dublin 8, while most of the existing clients in Bishop's Square who come from the Dublin 12 area are moved to a premises on the Long Mile Road. Changes of this type can be problematic because of access to bus routes and so on. I ask the Department to be mindful that some areas, even those which are close by, may be inaccessible to many people because of changes to Dublin Bus routes.

Deputy Joan Burton

I have taken a close interest in the works of NAMA and all its complex relationships with property developers, buildings and so on. I will ask the Department if any such arrangements are being made for the acquisition of premises, whether for purchase or lease, but I have not been advised of that. I will make inquiries and pass the information on to the Deputy. As the Deputy knows, property matters in general are handled by the OPW on behalf of the Department. I take into account the Deputy's remarks about people using the services of the Department in buildings without adequate space and so on. This is related to the very large unemployment rate of 14.7%, as announced by the CSO. The Department is anxious to address this issue.

I appreciate that Thomas Street is a suitable location for a social welfare office because it is accessible by so many bus routes, even if the availability of parking is not brilliant. I know people value the Thomas Street offices. I am not aware of a move from Bishop's Square to the Long Mile Road, but I will make inquiries. While the Long Mile Road might be all right for people with cars, there might not be so many accessible bus services.

Social Welfare Code

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

26 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will maintain the age of eligibility for the disability allowance at 16. [6008/11]

Deputy Joan Burton

In general, the social welfare system processes payments from the age of 18. The minimum age limit of 16 was established in 1953 as a qualifying condition for the disabled person's maintenance allowance and the age limit was maintained when that scheme was replaced by the disability allowance scheme in 1996.

The review of the disability allowance scheme published in November 2010 recommended increasing the qualifying age to 18 years. The review noted that the payment of disability allowance at age 16 carries with it the risk of creating a dependency on social welfare from a very young age and can generate disincentives for people to take up education, training or employment opportunities. A study conducted on the impact of the payment of the allowance from age 16 on retention rates in second-level education indicated that it would, at a minimum, act as a negative factor if a path out of education was being considered.

The payment of the allowance at such a young age also gives rise to issues relating to the control and use of the payment, about which views have been expressed by parents. In some circumstances, parents and guardians will be the financial agents for people with disabilities in the 16 to 18 age group, and the income may effectively be regarded as household income rather than as an income support for the individual concerned. Equally, there are issues with regard to the capacity of some vulnerable 16 year old people with disabilities to manage funds of this type. The question also arises as to whether it is appropriate, in terms of equity of treatment of all social protection recipients, to pay disability allowance at age 16 but other means-tested working-age schemes at age 18.

While cognisant of the findings of the review, I am conscious of the concerns raised some years ago when a proposal to increase the age limit to 18 was introduced and subsequently withdrawn by a previous Minister in my Department. Notably, there was an issue with regard to the expectations of families that additional income support would arise once their children had reached the age of 16. I will consider all of the issues involved carefully before reaching any decisions on this sensitive matter.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I note what the Minister has stated. The value-for-money review of the disability allowance scheme is quite a detailed report which was produced by the Department only in November 2010. The recommendations have far-reaching consequences, and while some of the proposals are positive, others are potentially negative, including the one highlighted in the question, which would affect many families with a member who is eligible for disability allowance at the age of 16. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this but, even allowing for the extension of domiciliary care allowance to the age of 18, which would make up some of the shortfall, the change would result in a cut in income of up to €440 per month for some households. This is a substantial amount for any family; in fact, it would halve the social protection payment for the claimants involved. Domiciliary care allowance is €309 per month, compared to the maximum personal rate of disability allowance, which is €188 per week.

Does the Minister share my concerns? I am not asking for a review of a review, but I ask her to consider, when implementing the review, an increase in the domiciliary care allowance to eliminate the shortfall, which in certain circumstances could be €440 per month.

Deputy Joan Burton

I thank the Deputy for his comments. When the Joint Committee on Social Protection recommences, this may be a matter that the Deputy, with all his experience, can raise for discussion.

There are 1,926 recipients of disability allowance aged between 16 and 18. This represents about 1.9% of the total number of people receiving disability allowance. The total spend on disability allowance for people between 16 and 18 is €18.8 million. As the Deputy said, it is a significant amount of money. One must also take account of the projected increase in the number of recipients. We are talking about the difference between paying the domiciliary care allowance until the child concerned reaches the age of 18 and the cost of transferring people to disability allowance at age 16.

Any change to the qualifying age would affect new claimants only — that is, existing claimants would continue to receive disability allowance even if they are under 18. Domiciliary care allowance will be paid up to age 18; currently, as the Deputy said, it ceases at age 16. There are currently 3,600 children of domiciliary care allowance recipients who are aged 14 or 15, and all of these claimants would migrate to disability allowance on reaching the age of 16. I would be concerned if there were a disincentive to a child involved staying on in school, education or training. This is a sensitive issue and should be discussed at greater length, perhaps at committee level when they have been established.

Child Support

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

27 Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to reform the rules governing child benefit specifically as regards to non-resident children; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6012/11]

Brendan Smith

Question:

44 Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Social Protection when she will raise the issue of payment of child benefit in respect of non-resident children at EU level as stated in the programme for Government. [5978/11]

Deputy Joan Burton

I propose to take Questions Nos. 27 and 44 together.

The social security rights of people moving around the EU are governed by EU regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009. These have been in existence in one form or another since 1959 and are designed to co-ordinate the social security systems of the various member states so that people and their families are not disadvantaged when they move within the EU.

A key principle of the co-ordination system is that persons moving to different member states are subject to the same obligations and enjoy the same benefits as the nationals of those member states. With few exceptions, it is the country of employment which receives the social security contributions and which is generally responsible for the payment of benefits.

Irish child benefit is classed as a family benefit with specific rules governing the payment of such benefits. EU nationals who come to work in Ireland, and who pay Irish social security contributions, are entitled to receive child benefit in respect of their families, even if the family resides in another EU member state. The equality provisions of the regulations require these payments are made at the same rates applicable to a person whose family is resident in Ireland. These provisions are seen as important in an EU context for the role they play in encouraging and facilitating the free movement of EU citizens.

As stipulated in the programme for Government, the Government intends to raise the issue of child benefit in respect of non-resident children at EU level and seek to have the entitlement modified to reflect the cost of living where a child is resident. This is a major departure from the current rules and must be approached in a cautious and sensitive manner.

The normal procedure for amending EU legislation is that a formal proposal be put forward by the European Commission which is then discussed and refined at various working parties and groups before being approved by a Council of Ministers. The proposal is then considered by the European Parliament in consultation with the Council. To make progress on the commitment in the programme for Government, it will be necessary to enlist the support of other countries and the European Commission. I am considering the best way of initiating this process.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Is the Minister aware that the cost of child benefit payments to non-resident children in 2010 came just to €15 million, less than 0.1% of the Department's overall €20 billion budget? With the downturn in the economy and the subsequent return of many EU nationals to their home states, this figure will continue to decrease.

The programme for Government commits to seeking a change on this benefit payment in the EU. Has contact been made yet with the Commission in this regard? As a former finance spokesperson, does the Minister believe it is wise to risk getting other member states' backs up over this benefit when her Cabinet colleagues are seeking an agreement on reducing Ireland's bailout rate?

Deputy Billy Kelleher

This issue has been used appallingly and with racist undertones by various groupings opposed to Europe and migration. I am concerned such an approach has become pervasive in our society. All politicians have heard those claims on the airwaves and elsewhere that billions in euro are paid out in social welfare payments to children not residing in the State when it is actually only €15 million. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh pointed out, the cost is being further reduced because of EU nationals returning to their home states. This benefit is not a huge drain on the social welfare budget and its provision and cost should not be blown out of proportion.

Changes to the benefit and its rate would require negotiations with all 27 EU member states. The first key point that will be made in such discussions will be that Ireland should reduce its child benefit rates anyway. Due to our dependence on EU funding and support for broader Government spending, such discussions could also open up a Pandora's box in other areas.

Deputy Joan Burton

Child benefit and other such supports are paid as direct payments to parents. In many EU member states, similar direct payments are far lower, some at even less than €20 a month, because of a lower cost of living or that child care and preschool education is provided by the State rather than through a direct payment to the parent. If a worker here has a child resident in another country, the question arises as to whether there should be some reflection of the cost of living in the payments that child receives from the State. Our EU partners are telling us through the Troika and the International Monetary Fund to achieve value for money in social welfare spending. This is important when considering the spend on child benefit which is significant to families and children, particularly at this time of mass unemployment. The payments should be spent on children in this country as far as is possible.

In 2007, the amount paid in respect of children resident in other EU countries was €4.7 million but by 2008 it had risen to €20.9 million. In 2009, it was reduced to €19 million and to €15.4 million in 2010. This was largely due to immigrants returning to their home countries and the expiry of entitlements.

It is appropriate to examine this spending area in conjunction with our EU partners. Many of them spend money directly on preschool and child care facilities. It must be remembered that the focus of the child benefit payment is primarily the child and the child in their family or other setting in which they are. The provision of subsidised or free child care through the State or local authority would be an enormous benefit, particularly when people are already spending up to €200 a week on child care. I think it appropriate to discuss this. It is important to do so and to discuss the matter with our European partners. Child benefit is particularly important to mothers and women. We do not want to undermine the principle of the payment of universal benefits but it is appropriate to seek that the payment is made to children resident in this country.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

Nobody disagrees with the views expressed by the Minister on the matter of children raised outside the State receiving child benefit from the State. People canvassing during the general election came across the view that billions of euro are being transferred from the State to other states. These views are being encouraged by those who have ulterior motives in trying to promote dissent and racism in our communities. I experienced this in Cork, where there is a view that billions are being transferred from the State. When discussing this, we should point out that while €15 million is a sizeable sum, in the context of the overall spending on social welfare it is not the massive amount sometimes portrayed by people. When we are speaking about it, we should try to keep it in context because it creates tensions in some areas and people use it for this purpose.

Deputy Joan Burton

The total payments for the past three years were approximately €56 million. In the overall child benefit budget, that may not seem like a lot of money but to people relying on social welfare income, €56 million is a lot of money. If we are to retain confidence in the social welfare contract between the citizen and the State, we must ensure we can tell people that the payments are appropriate and that, particularly in this case, payments benefit the children. At the back of some people's minds, there is the question about whether these payments are verified and whether they go to the benefit of the children in other countries. The Department carries out regular checks and requires certification that the children involved exist and are resident where they are advised as being resident. It is important to eliminate social welfare fraud so that Irish citizens have confidence that the taxes they pay when working are used in an appropriate way, particularly to benefit children resident in this country.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

Do we have any idea how much money is coming into the State from other countries?

Social Welfare Appeals

Sandra McLellan

Question:

28 Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Social Protection the current average and longest waiting times for social welfare appeals against refusals under the various schemes. [6010/11]

Deputy Joan Burton

The current average times to process social welfare appeals, by scheme, based on figures for 2010 are given in the detailed table following this reply, which I will not read out unless Deputy Kelleher really wants me to. The figures include cases revised by deciding officers of the Department in addition to those decided by appeals officers. There are no figures readily available for the longest waiting times in each scheme. I am informed by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that the overall average waiting time for an appeal dealt with by way of a summary decision in 2010 was 27 weeks, while the average time to process an oral hearing was almost 46 weeks. These processing times are calculated from the registration date of the appeal to the date of its finalisation. These include all activities during this period including time spent in the Department for comments by the deciding officer on the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant and any further investigation, examination or assessment by the Department's inspectors and medical assessors that is deemed necessary. A considerable period of time is added to the process when an oral hearing is required because of the logistics involved in the oral hearing. In order to be fair to all appellants, the appeals are dealt with in strict chronological order.

There has been a very significant increase in the number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office between 2007, when the intake was 14,070, and 2010, when the intake rose to 32,432. The Department estimates some 30,000 appeals will be lodged this year. The Department has made nine additional appointments to the office in recent weeks. Of these, three appointments are permanent assignments and six are temporary assignments for a period of two years, subject to review. These assignments will augment the three appointments made to the office in 2010, bringing the total number of appeals officers serving in the office to 29. In addition, since July 2010, eight retired appeals officers, equating to a further three full-time officers, have been assisting on a strictly temporary basis with the backlog of appeals and it is intended that they will be employed until the end of this year.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Average time taken to process appeals by scheme in 2010
Adoptive Benefit	32.6
Blind Pension	32.1
Carer's Allowance	29.9
Carer's Benefit	25.4
Child Benefit	51.5
Disability Allowance	35.0
Illness Benefit	37.4
Domiciliary Care	29.7
Deserted Wives Benefit	31.5
Farm Assist	30.7
Bereavement Grant	21.4
Family Income Supplement	21.6
Homemakers	15.3
Invalidity Pension	40.9
Liable Relatives	22.9
One Parent Family Payment	30.2
Maternity Benefit	22.4
State Pension (Contributory)	31.2
State Pension (Non-Cont)	35.6
State Pension (Transition)	23.7
Occupational Injury Benefit	39.2
Occupational Injury Ben (Med)	37.6
Disablement Pension	34.4
Death Benefit (Pension)	69.6
Incapacity Supplement	26.9
Guardian’s Payment (Con)	35.8
Guardian’s Payment (Non Con)	27.3
Pre-Retirement Allowance	6.5
Jobseeker’s Allow (Means)	30.1
Jobseeker’s Allowance	28.1
Jobseeker’s Benefit	26.0
Respite Care Grant	32.9
Insurability of Employment	41.3
Supplementary Welfare All	19.3
Treatment Benefits	38.8
Widow’s Pension (Con)	37.2
Widow’s Pension (Non Con)	32.8
Widow's Parent Grant	20.9

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Domiciliary care allowance is listed in the table. Before the election, I was told the appeals took an average of 49 weeks, almost a year. My office contacted the Department the week before last and was told that appeals submitted 17 months ago are now being assessed. A period of 17 months is unacceptable. Domiciliary care allowance is a small payment but for many people, especially when a child's disability has come to light, it can be quite overbearing. Waiting for a refusal of such payment is ridiculous. Should a review of the scheme be conducted? Is the Minister aware of the success rates of appeals? An increasing rate of successful appeals indicates a problem earlier in the system that should be addressed. The deciding officers at the initial phase need to spend more time examining the case files so they do not clog up the system later. In this case it is a small payment but in other social welfare cases people's lives depend on the payment so they can pay bills, maintain a roof over their heads and ensure their children can go to school.

I acknowledge the changes that have been brought about. Hopefully the temporary and permanent staff will have a substantial impact. An appeals process of three or four months, rather than nearly a year, is acceptable

Deputy Joan Burton

The current information on appeals is 29.7 weeks, a lengthy period of time in respect of domiciliary care allowance. Parents applying for this allowance for the first time can encounter significant difficulties. I told Deputy Kelleher earlier that, on taking up office, one of the first things I arranged to do was to meet the people in the management of the Social Welfare Appeals Office, with a view to seeing how we could deal with the appeals in a much speedier fashion. One part of that is the appointment of additional staff and I am confident that it will result in a significant improvement in the situation.

The second issue, being examined by the chief appeals officer, is to speed up the process by having more summary decision making. The required information must be in order so the appeals officer is in a position to make a decision because 42% of appeals are ultimately granted, which is a very high rate of successful appeal. If we could get more of the appeals dealt with by summary examination of the files and decision by the appeals officer that would significantly reduce the time, particularly when those people will go on to have an oral hearing and will have the appeal granted in any event. I will return to the Deputy on the matter. I am sure we will talk on the matter again.

I am aware of the difficulties experienced by people in the appeals process, in particular with important assistance such as the domiciliary care allowance. Today I was involved in the launch of the national advocacy scheme which is under the auspices of the Citizens Information Board. There is a very enthusiastic team of people in five regions in the country who will assist in advocacy. That will be a valuable additional source of information and advice for people involved in domiciliary care allowance appeals and requests.

Employment Rights

Jonathan O'Brien

Question:

29 Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Social Protection if she has explored the possibility of recouping the cost from guilty employers of social welfare payments made to persons during the period extending from their unfair dismissal and a determination by the Employment Appeals Tribunals that they had been wrongfully dismissed and were then reinstated or compensated by order of the tribunal. [6015/11]

Deputy Joan Burton

The Employment Appeals Tribunal is an independent body bound to act judicially and was set up to provide a speedy, fair, inexpensive and informal means for individuals to seek remedies for alleged infringements of their statutory rights. Where compensation is awarded by an Employment Appeals Tribunal, the award is subject to a maximum of 104 weeks remuneration. Remuneration includes basic pay, allowances, bonuses, benefit-in-kind and employers' contribution to pension and health insurance schemes where applicable. The tribunal, in setting the award, must consider actual and prospective loss. The tribunal can reduce the level of an award due to the employees' contribution to the dismissal, the employees' failure to mitigate the loss or the employees' ability to mitigate the loss by securing alternative employment. The calculation of awards is usually based on net remuneration.

Between 1977 and 1993, if an employee received an award as a result of an Employment Appeals Tribunal process, the amount of any social welfare payments received were deducted from this award. The Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 changed this provision to permit the tribunal to disregard social welfare benefits and tax rebates received by the claimant in assessing compensation levels. With regard to the possibility of recouping costs from employers where they have been found to have breached the statutory rights of their employees, any change in current provision would be a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, to consider in the first instance.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I hope the Minister will be in contact with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation because there is potential, based on the figures, to recoup up to €2 billion in payments. That is a quick estimate based on the amount of claims disposed of. There were 200 claims in the past year for which figures are available. In the period between the claim being registered and the outcome I presume most of those people depended in some way on a social welfare payment. It is a loss to the State. Employees benefit from the protection of the State but employers benefit from it also and in some cases when awards are made they have to pay back wages. I hope the Minister will pursue this matter.