With the agreement of the House, we will commence with Question No. 3 as Deputy Fleming is not yet here.
Priority Questions
Social Welfare Benefits
John Halligan
Question:3Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Social Protection in relation to applications for disability allowance if she will clarify when an application has been assessed by the appointed medical assessor and has been deemed not to qualify for the allowance, the way the medical evidence provided by the applicant’s medical practitioner in support of their application can be dismissed without a face to face assessment with an independent medical practitioner appointed by her Department in view of circumstances (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20881/12]
Disability allowance is a means tested weekly payment made to people aged between 16 and 66 years who have an injury, disease, physical or mental disability that has continued or may be expected to continue for at least one year and as a result of which the person is substantially restricted in undertaking work that would otherwise be suitable for a person of similar age, experience and qualifications.
Applications for disability allowance are assessed "at desk" on a case by case basis by the Department's medical assessors, all of whom are fully qualified medical practitioners who have training-experience in human disability evaluation. The medical assessor's opinion is based on the medical information furnished as part of the application process. It is important to note that when conducting an assessment, the medical assessor does not dispute the diagnosis of the person's doctor but, rather, taking the viewpoint of an occupational physician, considers the adverse effects that the person's condition has on the person's daily activities and capacity for work. Not alone does the medical assessor have regard to the person's medical condition, but he-she also considers the person's medical history, treatment regime, medication and personal ability-disability profile. Medical assessors also employ evidence based protocols to assist them with their desk assessments. The desk assessment process is much less time consuming than an "in person" process and as medical assessors do not diagnose, treat or give advice, the desk assessment process is considered to be a more efficient use of resources.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In cases where applicants are notified that they have not satisfied the medical conditions of the scheme, they are advised to submit any further medical evidence relevant to the case which is then reviewed by a medical assessor. In addition, applicants are advised regarding the option of appealing their case to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office. In cases of appeal the medical evidence is reviewed by a different medical assessor.
In certain circumstances a medical assessor may decide to call an applicant for an in-person assessment. However, in most cases the medical evidence furnished in support of the application is such that an in-person assessment is not required.
As a long-standing politician, the Minister, and many Members, will be aware that many people who present with illness to a medical practitioner are often diagnosed with a serious illness and subsequently deemed incapable of working. This diagnosis is then sent with their application form for disability or invalidity allowance. In many cases, these diagnoses are rejected.
Does the Deputy have a question for the Minister?
I would like to read a small piece of correspondence into the record, following which I will have a question for the Minister. The following is relevant to many cases with which Members deal:
X has a medical diagnosis of ischio-vertebral dysplasia resulting in significant deterioration and orthopaedic problems, has a rod inserted in her spine to attempt to support her trunk due to deterioration of bones in the spine. The use of powered mobility for medium to long distances and her ability to propel herself or mobilise on foot for long periods cannot be done. Uses a wheelchair.
I received the following reply from the Department of Social Protection:
I wish to refer to your correspondence regarding case X. The case was assessed by a medical assessor for the social welfare services who was of the opinion that X was not medically suitable for disability allowance.
This was in spite of a letter from the Central Remedial Clinic, a doctor and a specialist. Many doctors and specialists, having assessed and deemed a person physically or mentally unable to work, believe they are being undermined by unseen doctors from the social services, whom the Minister says are qualified. Why is it necessary for people who have doctor and specialist certification to support that they are incapable of working re-assessed? These people need disability and invalidity allowances. Would we not be better off abolishing this assessment and allowing the qualified doctors and specialists - in this case it is the Central Remedial Clinic - to make that decision, thus saving a substantial amount of money?
I thank the Deputy for his question. The number of people in receipt of the disability allowance has continued to increase significantly. In 2005, some 79,000 people were in receipt of disability allowance as compared with 102,000 in 2011, an increase of 1.7%. The number of awards has continued to rise. Medical evidence and diagnosis presented by a person's medical advisers and experts, be it a GP, consultant or specialist, is reviewed by the departmental medical assessors, who are qualified medical doctors. The test is in relation to the person's capacity to participate in work or some work.
I do not wish to comment on the particular case instanced by Deputy Halligan.
I understand that.
People often do not understand that the diagnosis of the person's medical advisers, doctors and experts is examined by medical assessors who are trained in occupational medicine. This is about whether a person can participate in some work. International information in this area indicates that enabling people to do some work is extremely good for their health-----
Without meeting the patient.
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
An alternative approach would be to set up an independent agency. The Deputy should remember that the claims on the Department in this respect are very large. The number of people has reached 102,000. The adviser who is the expert is the person's own doctor. The Department of Social Protection is not a medical service. We are asking medical experts to examine what the person's own doctor or medical adviser has said. In many cases, there is probably some work to be done in that regard. It is a question of whether the person can do some work. It is not possible for everyone to be taken in for a detailed medical assessment by the Department.
Quite frankly, the Department would not have the resources to examine more than 100,000 people. Approximately 25,000 apply for this benefit each year. We simply would not have the resources. We would also be duplicating the work of the person's own medical advisers. If the Deputy is suggesting there should be a separate medical expert system, perhaps that can be examined. The Department's resources would not stretch to examining everybody. One would be talking about over 100,000 people, or approximately 25,000 new people each year. We have to rely on the person's own medical experts. It is then a question of the presentation of the evidence and the decisions that are reached. The administrative assistants who administer the payments base their decisions on what the medical experts and assessors have to say.
Community Employment Schemes
Sean Fleming
Question:1Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will outline the findings of the reviews she commissioned in relation to community employment schemes; the schemes that have been earmarked for closure and cuts in materials and training grants; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20721/12]
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:2Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection the conclusions of her review of community employment schemes; if she will restore funding to the 2011 level; her plans for the future of CE; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20723/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Department's estimated overall expenditure on employment support schemes in 2012 is €983 million, which represents an increase of almost €121 million on the 2011 figure. Some €315 million has been provided for community employment this year in respect of some 23,300 participants. In addition, approximately 1,400 supervisors are paid by the Department. The Department is engaged in two reviews that impact on community employment. One of them is a review of labour market activation schemes generally and the other is a financial review of community employment schemes that aims to secure savings in the expenditure on materials and training grants in 2012, compared to 2011. After changes to the training and materials grant for community employment schemes were announced in budget 2012, I made a commitment that no scheme would close pending the completion of the financial review. This financial review is now nearing completion. To date, no scheme has been closed as a result of reductions to the materials and training grants. The review has proved to be a valuable exercise for the schemes and for the Department. The review is now close to completion. Given the volume and breadth of the data being returned by community employment sponsors, no final allocations of materials and training grants will be determined pending its completion. Community employment sponsors are working with the Department's community development officers to ensure adequate funding is available for the continuation of their projects.
Deputies are aware that the current economic circumstances have forced the Department to find significant savings in its 2012 budget. In the case of community employment, the reduction in the grant for materials and training represents a reduction of 7.5% of the overall expenditure on community employment in 2011. The allowance grants for supervisors are unchanged, as are the working hours for staff employed under community employment. There has been no decrease in the number of community employment places allocated in 2012. It is not possible to restore funding to 2011 levels. The baseline amount of the materials and training grant remains €500 per participant, as announced in the budget. However, the Department has discretion to make up to €1,000 per participant available to schemes in respect of the training and materials grant, subject to individual schemes providing a clear and transparent demonstration of the need for this level of funding. The onus is on sponsors to make the case for the appropriate grant levels for their individual schemes. The level of grant sought will have to be justified by the scheme sponsor and will be subject to verification and agreement by the Department on a case by case basis. Discussions with sponsors on these matters are being conducted in a constructive manner. Support is being provided to help the schemes remain viable. The existing commitment in relation to the financial support of schemes will continue to apply pending the full completion of the review process. We have also been working on reducing the fixed costs that have to be met in operating the community employment programme. We have already obtained significant savings in the cost of insurance to sponsors. We are confident of obtaining similar reductions in the areas of accountancy fees and bank charges.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
A policy review of activation measures is under way. This review will be completed in the next few months. There is a role for schemes that are primarily directed towards the provision of crucial social services to disadvantaged communities, such as child care, elderly care and drug treatment programmes. The intrinsic value of these schemes needs to be more broadly recognised in terms of the economic contribution made by the provision of these services, which otherwise would fall back on the State to provide at a much higher cost. When both reviews are completed, it is my intention to have a stakeholders' seminar on community employment, most probably to take place in June or July.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response, primarily because of the lack of information in it. Essentially, she summarised where we have been over the last couple of months on this issue. I tabled this question because I wanted to receive some information. I understood we would receive this report at the end of March. The Minister has said that the assessment is nearing completion. I suggest that the volume of work involved in the assessment means it will not be completed in the Department of Social Protection for a couple of months. We could be well into the summer by then. The Minister has told the schemes they can make the case for the funding they are receiving at the moment. I am sure most of them are doing that. If she wants to achieve the budget cut that she announced on budget day, will she have to implement that entire cut in the second half of the year? That would be a severe situation for those involved. Schemes are rolling forward all the time. What will happen to schemes that are commencing at the moment? I refer to those that commenced in the last month or two or will commence in the next month or two. I would like some clarification on where they are, in relation to their grants.
The Minister mentioned the position of sponsors. She asked individual sponsors to do a great deal of work when she sought financial information from them. Some of them are having difficulty providing that information. The Minister is putting a tremendous workload on small organisations with minuscule budgets, such as local tidy towns committees. The new procedures she mentioned will also impose extra costs on them. Can the Minister guarantee that the number of people who are currently working on community employment schemes and the number of supervisors will be maintained?
As the Deputy is probably aware, the schemes transferred from the old FÁS to my Department on 1 January last. I am determined that the important social contribution of community employment schemes, in delivering social services in communities across the country, will be recognised. I am keen to ensure those who participate in the scheme enjoy good experiences which help them to get back to work or education and training. That is really important. The transfer of the former FÁS staff who were working on these schemes to the Department of Social Protection, where they have become departmental community services officers and employment officers, is probably one of the biggest reforms ever to be undertaken in the Irish public service. Under the Croke Park agreement, some 1,700 people, including HSE and FÁS officials, have transferred. As I said in my reply, more than 23,000 people are participating in schemes alongside approximately 1,400 supervisors.
A great deal of valuable work is being completed by the officials who used to work in FÁS but are now working in the Department of Social Protection, in conjunction with the sponsors and the community employment supervisors. Everybody is aware that this country is enduring a period of acute unemployment. We have to ensure not only that we continue the valuable social services and other services that are supplied by these schemes, but also that the people on the schemes enjoy quality experiences. Those who have become unemployed more recently should also get an opportunity to take part in community employment schemes. Overall expenditure on labour supports like community employment, including JobBridge and Tús, both of which are being availed of by some community organisations, has increased this year. Dialogue with the scheme sponsors and supervisors is really important in ensuring that we build better schemes.
In December, the Government dropped a bombshell in regard to CE scheme participants and sponsor groups. The Minister then ran for cover using the review that was announced. There was to be a report in March but we now hear it could be a number of weeks or months before it is produced. Perhaps it will never be produced. Does the Minister accept that, for many CE schemes to survive at all, funding must be restored to 2011 levels? The funding for 2011 had already been cut in many ways. Can the Minister confirm that a second and more secretive review is under way on the part of the Department on foot of promises made to the troika and is being conducted without any consultation with the unions, CE participants or projects? It concerns the very future of community employment.
Is the Minister aware that, irrespective of reviews, the Government has already had a devastating effect on community employment? Across Dublin, in respect of child care courses in particular, community employment scheme supervisors are highlighting difficulties associated with filling vacancies. This is as a direct consequence of the Government's cuts to lone parent payments. Participation on community employment schemes is particularly unaffordable. Is the Minister aware that many projects are against the wall as a consequence of the Minister's budget cuts? Progression-focused training is barely happening now, with the consequence that participants will in many cases go back on the dole at the end of their term with few, if any, qualifications, or with half qualifications.
The second review to which the Deputy referred is a policy review of activation measures that are under way. This review will be completed in the next few months. It takes into account all the headings, including community employment, under the labour support measures valued at just under €1 billion. The expenditure of €1 billion by the Department of Social Protection on labour support and employment measures, returning people to education, Tús, JobBridge, community employment schemes and a variety of other schemes is very significant and important.
The Deputy referred to the IMF. When the previous Government brought in the IMF and did its deal with it, it presented all the review papers across every department that were in production at the time. Many good people were working in FÁS but the actions of some of its staff seriously damaged the brand. The former Government decided to take FÁS out of the jobs and enterprise category and put it into the education category with a view to responsibility being transferred to the Department of Social Protection. That is what has happened.
Our activity is not just because of the troika. We are spending €1 billion and need to ensure the continuation of service delivery, good experience for the people on the schemes and value for money. There is no difficulty in seeking value for money in these times.
The Deputy referred to double payments for certain categories of people. For instance, somebody on a community employment scheme could have been getting a full CE scheme payment and a full individual social welfare payment. In some cases, this amounted to approximately €450 per week, on which one had only to pay PRSI, not taxation, for 19.5 hours of work. This is quite expensive for the Department. There are many working full-time, even in the public service, who do not get €450 per week after paying tax and PRSI.
We need an honest discussion about the costs involved. We must try to meet three objectives: service delivery, good experience for the participant, and value for money.
Job Creation
4.Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection the progress made in developing the Pathways to Work plan; if private contractors will be used; if any personnel training, personnel adjustments and redeployments are planned; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20722/12]
The Pathways to Work initiative has been developed to deliver a new approach to the provision of services to unemployed people. The key objective is to deliver a service that supports people who are unemployed to find a pathway back to employment and thereby reduce both the average duration of unemployment and the number of people who are long-term unemployed. A detailed project plan for the establishment of the new service was approved by the Government and published in June of last year, and I am pleased to say the Department has made significant progress in implementing this plan. The next significant milestone is the pilot implementation of a new one-stop-shop or integrated service in four offices, and I expect these to be implemented, on schedule, in May or June this year. They are already being rolled out on a pilot basis.
The new service will be staffed by people currently working within the Department, including the approximately 1,700 staff who recently transferred into the Department from FÁS and the community welfare service and who bring with them significant experience in the one-to-one case management of clients. Approximately 400 of the staff who transferred are involved in the activation of unemployed people. We have taken over the local employment services, which have particular expertise in this area. Most of the transferred staff have received professional training in employment guidance. Many of the 1,000 staff of the community welfare service have experience of working in a case-management capacity. I acknowledge that, given the level of unemployment, additional staff will need to be deployed to activation or case-management activities and that appropriate training will be required for staff with such duties. In this regard, the Department has its own in-house staff development unit. The unit will take the lead in developing and organising the relevant training. Initially, training will focus on the competencies deemed necessary for the case-management role.
It is unlikely, however, that redeployment within the Department or even from the wider public service will provide sufficient staff to fully resource the new service. Accordingly, in the context of the Croke Park agreement, we will probably have to stop sub-contracting case management and activation services.
The Minister just about squeezed in the last little bit when she mentioned private contractors doing some of the work. Could she give us a little more detail on what is intended by this? Given the importance of addressing unemployment, is there not a case to be made for partly lifting the recruitment embargo in this area?
The Minister stated approximately 9,000 people are to leave the public service this year. Approximately 4,000 are to be re-employed. Some are teachers and some are in the health area. There is definitely a case for helping people to return to work. This could comprise one of the most productive areas.
The Minister stated four offices are to be up and running in May and June. Which offices are these? Will the Minister give us information on the professional training that has already been carried out by some of her staff? Has any of this training been done externally to date? What contractors were used and what was the procurement method? Are private contractors being asked by the Minister to do some, quite a lot or all of this work?
Work on the possible involvement of private sector providers, which is very complex, especially in regard to the payment basis and avoiding dead-weight effects, is ongoing within my Department. This work will be done within the framework of the Croke Park agreement. We are examining this area in depth. One should bear in mind that there are organisations, including Rehab, that provide employment services, and I am sure the Deputy is familiar with them. There are also local employment services which provide dedicated employment services through local companies.
The key is to develop models that offer good services to people who are trying to return to education, training and, ultimately, employment.
That is where the focus will be when we have completed the work on this. One must remember that we are just setting up, have just taken in those involved in FÁS and the community welfare and are setting up the pilots for the roll out. We have already been doing it on a pilot basis. We will set those up in May and June so I will come back to the Deputy when we have more advanced work done on this.
In regard to the private trainers the Minister will involve in this process, I understand from some of the people in the industry that there will probably be a condition in those contracts that a certain percentage of people being trained end up in further education or in employment or there will be a penalty in regard to the payment to them if they do not achieve that. Will there be a parallel mechanism for in-house staff doing the same work as external contractors? If that benchmark is being used for external contractors, the public service would want to see the same standard being applied to it.
I appreciate what the Deputy has said but he should bear in mind what I said. The people who have come from FÁS and the community welfare service have, in many cases, already got training experience and experience of one-to-one dealings with individuals, either in the community welfare office or the FÁS employment services. The Department also has in-house training. We must provide an integrated service - this is where the change is - so when one goes in to sign on for a benefit or an allowance, one is also given help and assistance.
The issue in regard to the private sector would have to be worked out in detail. We have seen different models in different countries. As I said, we have a number of private providers in Ireland and there is often co-operation at an informal level.
One of my concerns is that the old FÁS did not have a sufficient level of engagement with employers. If there were a couple of vacancies in, say, Tullamore or Roscommon, it is really important that the local employer goes to the employment office to say he or she requires two or three people. We must ensure people who are on the unemployment register have a reasonable opportunity to go forward for those jobs.
We must rebuild the relationship, in particular at a local level and a regional level with employers on the ground so that vacancies are notified. That is one area which fell back with the damage done to FÁS. Many employers simply do not think of going to FÁS. We must build that relationship back up from the ground and I am really anxious to do that.
Child Care Services
Joan Collins
Question:5Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will outline the conditions that would constitute enough childcare support and after school care in order that one parent payments would be cut at the age of seven in the future. [20951/12]
In the past, income support for people of working age, including lone parents, has been passive in nature with little systematic engagement by the State with the customer. This is now changing. Long-term welfare dependency and passive income support to people of working age are not in the best interests of the recipient, of their children or of society.
The best route out of poverty and social exclusion is through paid employment. Work, and especially full-time work, may not be an option for parents of young children. However, supporting parents to participate in the labour market, once their children have reached an appropriate age, will improve both their own economic situation and the social well-being of themselves and of their families.
The one-parent family payment has played an important role in providing income support to lone parents. Total expenditure this year is estimated at €1.06 billion. Changes have been made to the payment since its introduction in 1991, reflecting the changes taking place in society, the labour market and the expectations and realities of parents' lives, in particular of mothers, in terms of work and care. These reforms continue that change. They recognise parental choice with regard to the care of young children while, at the same time, having an expectation that parents will not remain outside of the workforce indefinitely.
These reforms will require a whole of Government response with regard to the provision of the appropriate education, training, employment and child care supports including the provision of appropriate after school care. The changes introduced in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012 are being brought in over time. Between now and 2014, the consequences of these changes will be examined on a cross-departmental basis and in consultation with the groups that represent lone parents.
I am happy to tell the Deputy that discussions have already been taking place between the Department and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills with regard to thedevelopment of a policy framework around child care, including after school care and, in the short-term, the assessment of the extent of the current provision of such care, the costs of such care to parents and the demand for such services from lone parents.
Anybody sitting in the Visitors Gallery would not know the question I asked was if the Minister for Social Protection would outline the conditions that would constitute enough child care support and after school care so that one parent payments would be cut at the age of seven in the future. This question has also been asked by groups such as Barnardos. Will the Minister provide evidence of any country which has made the kind of transition in child care services about which we are talking in just 18 months and against the backdrop of cutbacks and the need to generate Exchequer savings?
There was a contradiction in what the Minister said. Even in the limited outline she gave me, it was not clear how she would see this situation changing. She made it clear that no extra funding would be made available for investment in restructuring child care services in the short term or medium term. Does the Minister really believe the radical child care services needed will be in place within 18 months?
The Minister alluded to the Scandinavian model of child care. Does she know Scandinavian child care is a very specific child care provision? Preschool is available to children from aged one to the time they begin primary school. Children in Sweden begin preschool at different ages and attend for different amounts of time per week. They are open all year round and on certain holidays and the daily schedule is based on the needs of parents with children. Is that the type of preschool model the Minister wants to bring in which is affordable to people because preschool is not affordable to people in this country ?
Our model has developed over a long period of time. Until recently, lone parent status, specifically in regard to parenting, did not end until children reached the age of 18 or 22. The countries the Deputy referenced have good systems.
The Minister referenced them.
The Deputy referenced them as well and indicated that she thinks some elements of their systems are progressive. The situation in those countries is that a parent parenting on their own as well as being assisted with income support, as in our case, is also assisted to get back into education and training and, ultimately, into work because all the indications are that the best route to tackling poverty is for a child to be in a household where one or both parents are at work. That is the net point.
As a country, we have been spending more than €1 billion per year on lone parent support, yet the outcomes in terms of poverty for the parent and the child are not the kind of outcomes I would like to see, in particular in the context of the money we are spending. Over the past decade, this country has invested more than €1 billion in developing child care infrastructure under the national child care investment programme and prior to that, the European Union co-funded equal opportunities and child care programmes. We have the early childhood care and education programme, which is open to child between three years and three months. Some 61,000 places are being provided under that programme - 17,000 by community providers and 44,000 by private providers. There is also the community child care subvention, with which I am sure the Deputy is familiar.
Before the changes are brought in in a number of years time, we must work to expand the provision and give lone parents and their children a better outcome and better opportunities so they are not in poverty. The Deputy and others have stated repeatedly that, despite the money we spend, many lone parents and their children are poorer than we would like.
The Minister has still not answered the question, which I asked so that we might debate the matter during our discussion on the amendments to the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012. As the Minister knows, there are not enough affordable child care facilities. Lone parents want to work, but seven years of age is too young to keep their children at home and there are not enough child care facilities available to help them return to the workplace. Lone parents comprise a small group and I cannot understand why the Minister would claim that child care provision has not developed in recent years, given the fact that the birth rate has increased in the past two to three years. Surely the Government should be reacting to this increase and providing more affordable facilities. Once again, the Minister has not outlined the situation. People were expecting more from her regarding her views on introducing Scandinavian-type child care to Ireland.
My Department and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs are examining current levels of provision. For instance, the national child care investment programme, NCIP, supports approximately 15,800 after-school places and there are more than 37,000 childminding places. There is a total of 75,000 places in all, given the variety of ways in which after-school care, for example, can be provided. The Early Start and new preschool programmes have been valuable for parents.
I have listened to debates on child care for at least 20 years. As a country, we must aspire to good models that provide preschool and after-school care in particular. Some models are in place and the Government has created a full Department of children, one responsibility of which is to address this issue, given its importance to parents. Tomorrow morning, I will launch a report on child poverty indicators via the ESRI. This issue is one of the strongest indicators. If someone is parenting on his or her own and does not have an opportunity early enough to return to education or training and, from there, move on to work, that person's chances of being fully financially independent are much reduced.
Family incomes are being cut.