Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 May 2012

Vol. 764 No. 1

Topical Issue Debate

Prisoner Releases

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. I welcome the publication of the strategic plan from the Irish Prison Service last Monday and congratulate the Director General of the Irish Prison Service, Michael Donnellan, and his team for putting it together in such a short period of time since his appointment. His appointment as director is significant. He comes with a progressive background from the Probation Service and the experience of his work there will fit into the job in the Prison Service. The provision of in-cell sanitation in every cell within three and a half years is to be welcomed. Anyone who has seen the reality of a prison cell has a different understanding of this issue.

I strongly welcome the drug-free units and it would be remiss not to draw attention to the work in Mountjoy Prison, where great progress was made in recent years for relatively low capital investments by using people's ideas and making it virtually impossible to transport drugs into Mountjoy. I particularly welcome the moving of 16 and 17 year olds out of St. Patrick's Institution. The Minister and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and all involved in that decision, if they do nothing else for the rest of their term, should be rightly proud if they achieve that by the end of their term in office. In terms of using prison as a place for rehabilitation and learning, the policy of having 16 and 17 year olds in St. Patrick's Institution cannot work. The Minister enjoys the full support of this side of the House in pursuing that policy as soon as possible.

I am concerned, however, given resource constraints at the moment, about the plan for temporary release of prisoners into community service and projects which, unlike some of the reports in the media, is not a huge leap from what is happening at present. The formalisation of the scheme, however, will require resources for the Probation Service in particular and the Irish Prison Service.

Those who are going to be released will be deemed not to be a safety risk. I am happy to accept that language but the Minister has commissioned a report on the manner in which the prisoner was transferred to Loughan House. Balls get dropped. I know there is a new report but what procedures exist to deem what is a safety risk? The Minister said non-violent prisoners will be released. Are we talking about prisoners who are non-violent while serving their sentences or a person who has committed a non-violent offence? Will a prisoner who committed a violent offence be released?

A pilot programme involving 85 prisoners is in place. Could the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality get a presentation in private session on the report on that programme to see how it is working?

My final point relates to the role of victims in this process. Every crime, regardless of its scale, has a victim. Will victims' families be involved in the consultation process relating to the pre-release programme? The last thing we need is for the victim of a crime to come across the individual who perpetrated it while he or she is involved in some element of a community service programme, perhaps working in the victim's neighbourhood or outside his or her home. Would it be possible to formalise the role of victims in the pre-release process in order that they might be fully involved? One of the major shocks for me in respect of Loughan House was that once the prisoner had been jailed, the victim's family was completely out of the equation. I know there is much better awareness of the needs of victims' families in the aftermath of that incident. Perhaps that awareness needs to permeate the entire system, particularly as we move towards the formalisation of the pre-release process.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter and his very constructive comments. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue which has been a topic of some discussion for a number of days.

As the Deputy is aware, on Monday last I launched the new three year strategic plan for the Irish Prison Service. The plan contains a new mission statement and vision for the service. That mission is to "provide safe and secure custody, dignity of care and rehabilitation to prisoners for safer communities". The plan also contains a vision for the service of "a safer community through excellence in a prison service built on respect for human dignity". The plan has the potential to deliver a safer and more secure environment for prisoners and staff and enhance prisoner rehabilitation through greater involvement in sentence planning and structured activities. It can also be a catalyst for bringing about cultural change in prisons.

The plan's key objectives are: increasing public safety by maintaining safe and secure custody for all those committed by the courts and reducing reoffending and improving prisoner rehabilitation through the development of a multi-agency approach to offending; ensuring Ireland's compliance with domestic and international human rights obligations and best practice; delivering reform and implementing change in accordance with the public service agreement and the integrated reform plan for the justice and equality sector. The plan includes several concrete and practical, if ambitious, targets for the next three years. Many of these objectives give effect to commitments given in the programme for Government and include the elimination of slopping out across the prison estate; the replacement of outdated accommodation and facilities in Mountjoy, Cork and Limerick prisons; ending the detention of juveniles at St. Patrick's Institution; the creation of drug-free units; and the enhancement of current programmes, including accredited education and vocational training for prisoners.

The Irish Prison Service is setting out to re-engineer the prison system to give further effect to the principles of normalisation, progression and reintegration. This is done through work training and education but also through the work of the medical, dental and other health care services, the psychology service and the chaplaincy, not forgetting the inputs from the Probation Service and voluntary and community organisations.

On many occasions in this House I have been asked about prison overcrowding. Chronic overcrowding and all the problems that come with it are the result of the failure of previous Governments to provide an appropriate number of places across the prison estate. This is an issue the current Administration is determined to address. Already, after only 14 months in government, arrangements have been put in place for the provision of a 300 space wing at the Midlands Prison which is likely to open in September or early October. Plans are under way for the provision of a new prison in Cork. The capital plan funding allocation for the Irish Prison Service building programme for 2012 also provides for the continuation of the refurbishment and in-cell sanitation project at Mountjoy Prison.

A pilot community return project commenced in October last in line with the recommendations of the Thornton Hall project review group. The project which is run by the Probation Service and the Irish Prison Service provides for earned early temporary release to be offered to offenders who pose no threat to society in return for supervised community service. The project has engaged 85 prisoners and proved to be very successful. It is now planned to roll it out nationally. In reply to the specific query raised by the Deputy, I am in a position to state a review will be carried out when the project is complete. I will be happy to share the information from that review with the Deputy in the format he suggested, namely, via a briefing to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. To date, four of the 85 prisoners involved in the project have been returned to prison for not complying with the conditions laid down. The perception is that the project is working successfully. However, a full review must be carried out of its workings upon completion. Under the new proposal, at any one time a maximum of 150 prisoners will be engaged with the scheme. In the three year lifetime of the plan, up to 1,200 prisoners will participate. It will not be the case, as has been suggested in some of the more interesting media reports, that during this period there will be 1,200 prisoners on such structured release.

The potential benefits of the programme are obvious. Instead of releasing large numbers of prisoners on temporary release, without any assessment, in an unstructured manner, we will have a structured programme involving carefully selected and motivated prisoners. The community return programme is restricted to suitably assessed prisoners who are serving sentences of more than one and less than eight years and who have served at least 50% of their sentences. The overriding consideration in the operation of the programme is that of public safety.

The following factors are taken into account in considering the suitability of a prisoner for temporary release to participate in the project: the nature and gravity of the offence to which the sentence being served relates; the sentence concerned and any recommendations made by the court in respect of the sentence imposed; the potential threat to the safety and security of the public should the person be released; the person's previous criminal record; the risk of the person failing to comply with any of the conditions of temporary release; the extent of the prisoner's engagement with therapeutic services while in custody; and conduct while in custody.

It has been the practice of previous Governments to release prisoners before their full term of imprisonment has been completed. The community return project provides a structure and an assessment process in respect of specific objectives to be achieved in connection with such releases. Prison must not be merely a warehouse to contain convicted offenders for a period of time before releasing them back into the community to reoffend. Our rates of recidivism are too high and we must take action to reduce them. We must innovate and do things differently in order to reduce the unacceptable level of recidivism and reoffending. By doing this we will provide greater protection from criminality for the community in general.

I again thank the Deputy giving me the opportunity to address this matter in the House. On the specific issue he raised in respect of the victims of crime, he will be aware of the commitment in the programme for Government regarding the introduction of a Bill to detail in law with the protections available to such victims. Developments within the European Union may result in a victims' of crime measure that will apply across all of the member states. If such a measure is directly applicable, we will not be obliged to publish our own legislation. It is likely that legislation to go hand in hand with this measure will be produced and that it will address issues relating to victims in the context of prescribing their rights and entitlements in respect of the information which should be made available to them.

Perhaps the Minister might expand on the European Union initiative to which he refers. Given that Ireland will hold the Presidency of the Union next year, will he seek to champion the role victims should play in sentence management? We need to re-imagine our approach to this matter. The Minister referred to re-engineering the process. There is a need to include victims in it.

Has the Minister determined whether additional resources will have to be made available to the Probation Service? In that context, he has indicated that only 150 prisoners will be involved in the scheme at any one time. This suggests the projects envisaged will be short-term in nature. Will the Minister provide some details of the kind of projects being undertaken as part of the pilot programme? I am somewhat concerned about the practicality of having 150 people at a time engaged in a scheme which will ultimately involve 1,200 people over three years.

On the very first occasion on which I, as Minister for Justice and Equality, attended a meeting of the Council of Ministers I raised the issue of the victims of crime. Commissioner Reding has produced a proposal which is under consideration by the technical committees and which was the subject of an initial discussion at a meeting of the Council of Ministers. In the context of the forthcoming Irish Presidency, I have made it clear that there will be two major priorities in the justice area, the first of which is to substantially advance across Europe the project relating to the victims of crime. If we do not manage to complete the putting in place of the proposed legal provision in this regard, at the very least we will progress it to a very advanced stage in order that it will come into play at some point during 2013.

The second issue is to prioritise the seizure of criminal assets. On the resources issue, I am perfectly satisfied the Probation Service will have the resources available to it for this particular project. There are several individuals under existing legislation currently engaged in community service. The Probation Service, under the leadership of Michael Donnellan who heads up the Prison Service, was able to make the arrangements to operate the pilot programme with 85 prisoners. I do not have major concerns that this will give rise to any issues. Provision of this programme is, in fact, a saving to taxpayers. Instead of appropriate prisoners who pose no risk to the community being kept in jail for an extended period, they will be released from prison and be under the supervision of the Probation Service while doing community work to the benefit of local communities.

There is a double plus in this. While it will impose some additional obligations on the Probation Service, it will reduce the costs to the Prison Service of keeping people in the prison system in circumstances where it no longer serves a purpose. This project will be very carefully rolled out. It will be as carefully rolled out as was the pilot project. Within the Prison Service, those engaged in the project and the director general of the Prison Service are aware of my views to ensure no individual who poses a risk to the community is released under this project. There will be some individuals who will not have any possibility of being engaged in this project. I believe we have to start doing things differently, and that involves not just this project.

The media attention of this project has been interesting. It has been misrepresented as suddenly releasing 1,200 people from our Prison Service. What everyone is losing sight of is that we release a substantial number of people every year from our Prison Service, having completed three quarters of their sentence because they automatically get 25% remission. We need to do things more intelligently, reduce expenditure where we can, benefit communities and re-equip individuals to work within their communities. The great benefit of the structured release system is that it is envisaged that it would not just deal with community service. Part of the condition of the release will be that, where necessary, the individual will co-operate with the psychiatric services where assistance is needed or engage with supports with regard to drug abuse or alcohol addiction. It is envisaged this will be a structured temporary release programme that is substantially better than what we have had previously.

I must apologise that I cannot take the next item. My good colleague, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, will deal with it because I am supposed to be in the Seanad at 4 o'clock for a Private Members' Bill.

Crime Detection

Earlier this week the Central Statistics Office, CSO, released the most up-to-date crime statistics for the period 2006 to 2010. These statistics contained some positive news. For example, the detection rate for drug offences stood at 90%, for murder at 83% and for weapons and explosive offences at 90%. This is good news and reflects the excellent work done by members of An Garda Síochána. The one glaring exception to these high detection rates was in the area of burglary and related offences. Of the 25,377 incidents of burglary recorded in 2010, only one in four was detected by the Garda. Moreover, only one in 12, or 2,000 cases, led to a conviction. This issue is of particular interest to me as a Dublin Deputy with the Dublin metropolitan region accounting for over 40% of all incidents of burglary, with Dublin South-Central showing the highest per capita figures with 1,261 burglaries per 100,000 people.

It is important to consider several points about the nature of burglaries. Most instances occur in private family homes. For many people, burglary is the only form of crime which they will ever directly encounter. It is also one of the most intrusive and invasive forms of crime. It can be most distressing and disturbing for the families affected. Most colleagues will agree that it often changes people's perception of their own home, sometimes forever. The impact of burglaries on the victims must not be underestimated.

Burglary can be considered an opportunistic crime, often committed by people starting out in crime. The CSO statistics reflect this with a large number of convictions of young men in particular. Fear of being caught is the only real deterrent to this problem. With only one in four cases detected and only one in 12 leading to a conviction, the fear of being caught is far smaller for burglary than other crimes. The key to apprehending burglars and creating a real deterrent is to ensure adequate forensic work is carried out. Unfortunately, in many instances this vital work is not carried out. I know this from many cases of burglary in my area and this is further borne out by these statistics. Forensic work is the foundation of detection. It secures the evidence necessary to bring people to court and to secure a conviction. Without it, the entire investigative effort collapses. People, both criminals and victims, are aware that adequate forensic work is not carried out in many instances. This further reduces the deterrent for criminals, increases instances of burglary and leads to statistics such as those released this week.

Gardaí often fail to pay sufficient attention to patterns of burglary. Clear evidence and patterns arise in the commission of burglary. Consistencies can emerge in the techniques used by the individuals involved as well as the homes they target, how they travel and how they dispose of stolen goods. Unfortunately, not enough knowledge is gained from studying these patterns. This needs to be changed to raise detection rates.

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality who has had to attend the Seanad. He welcomes this opportunity to comment on recently published crime figures.

The crime statistics overview published this week by the CSO relates to the period 2006 to 2010 and includes a range of additional information not included in previous releases. These figures cover the period in office of the past two Fianna Fáil-led Governments. The most recent crime figures relate to 2011, which were published by the CSO on 30 March last. These most recent statistics show a decrease in most types of crime during 2011, including homicide, assault, criminal damage, drug and public order offences. Taken together, this overall decrease represents a substantial achievement for law enforcement and crime prevention.

The Minister is concerned at the increase in the number of burglaries reflected in the latest CSO figures and welcomes the fact that An Garda Síochána is responding effectively to this development. In so far as the specific question of detection rates is concerned, the most recent CSO analysis shows a detection rate for burglary in the region of 25% for 2010. It is important to note detection rates vary according to the nature of the crime which is in line with international experience. Detection rates are often found to be lower for certain offences such as burglaries and some other property crimes as these generally only come to light after the event and after the offender has left the scene. These offences are inherently more difficult to investigate than some others. While our statistical system is not directly comparable with that of other countries such as the UK, for example, the difficulties presented in detecting burglaries are reflected in the fact that the detection rate for burglaries in England and Wales in 2010-2011 was recorded as 13%.

Notwithstanding the investigative challenges presented, however, the Garda is responding effectively. The Deputy will be aware the Garda Commissioner has recently announced the introduction of a wide range of measures aimed at tackling gangs involved in burglaries. This operation, Operation Fiacla, is particularly focused on identifying and targeting mobile gangs involved in burglaries throughout the country so as to disrupt their activities and bring them before the courts. Operation Fiacla is intelligence-driven and specific burglary initiatives have been implemented in each Garda region in support of this operation to target suspect offenders, disrupt their activities and secure their attendance before the courts. These initiatives will optimise the use of existing structures and local Garda management will ensure all personnel, community policing units, local traffic forces, regional support and other specialised units are fully briefed on the initiative, with divisional crime management teams playing a key role in co-ordinating implementation.

Prevention is also a key component in tackling burglary and the national crime prevention unit, NCPU, and crime prevention officers at divisional level provide advice, information and support to organisations, businesses and individuals aimed at reducing burglary crime and the opportunity to commit burglary. These specially trained officers are skilled at identifying environmental design risks and advise on ways to reduce opportunities to commit burglary and other property crime. The NCPU has designed a number of crime prevention advice leaflets, including advice on home security and burglary prevention through a step-by-step checklist. These leaflets and the checklist are available on the Garda website.

Today the Garda Commissioner is launching the national Garda Supporting Safer Communities Campaign. This important campaign will highlight a range of key issues, in particular burglary prevention. The primary objective of this campaign is to engage with and raise awareness within communities of initiatives aimed at preventing crime, reducing the fear of crime and promoting community safety. In addition to the campaign being launched today, a further campaign will take place in September. In addition to these community-based initiatives, the "Crime Call" television programme is broadcast once a month to an average audience of 400,000 viewers. Gardaí often utilise the programme to highlight the issue of burglary prevention, as well as particular ongoing investigations. The Government will do everything we can to support the gardaí in their work, provide resources as public finances permit and respond to any legislative needs that are identified. I thank the Deputy for raising the issue.

The key point is that the figures for burglaries have spiralled and detection rates have plummeted. That is very worrying as the people involved seem to feel they will not be apprehended, which comes from the knowledge that very little forensic work is being done at the site of these crimes. I know that from my experience.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. I wonder if the failure to conduct adequate forensic work is a resource issue for An Garda Síochána and if adequate resources are being provided for gardaí to conduct this important work. I doubt that is the case. This form of work should be among the most inexpensive to carry out, and in comparison with other crimes and forms of detection, and taking into account the extensive co-operation which gardaí receive from the community, the cost of this work is relatively low. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that sufficient resources are made available for this most important work so the problems behind the statistics we have seen published this past week can be tackled effectively.

I will be brief. The Minister for Justice and Equality is in regular contact with the Garda Commissioner and is always posing the question of what the Government can do through legislation and resources; depending on what is available, the requests will be met. It is something dear to the Minister's heart, as I am sure the Deputy already knows.

There are actions which will probably have a far greater impact on the reduction in burglaries. For example, Muintir na Tíre has established 1,345 community alert groups, and we all know of the success of neighbourhood watch schemes. Those processes will have a major impact. The Deputy is probably well aware that when either the individuals or gangs involved in burglaries are brought to court, it is usually after a series of burglaries, and forensics only match one burglary with another. When that type of information is held within the organisation, it can be seriously effective.

Emergency Services

I wish to share time with Deputy Andrew Doyle.

I am afraid that is not possible with Topical Issues. Time may only be shared where two people apply for the same topic. I would like to facilitate the Deputies but unfortunately, it is not provided for.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this very important issue. Although I do not purport to speak on behalf of Deputy Doyle, I know he is aware of and supportive of this issue, as he has been over a number of years. I have not spoken on any issue that is more important than this in my time in the Dáil, and I have grave concerns about this project.

I acknowledge and recognise the excellent work done by Wicklow community first responders, a voluntary group set up almost ten years ago that went active in spring 2005. As recently as a week or two ago, the Greystones cardiac first responders were presented with a special recognition award at Greystones town council. It is a group that has worked hand in glove with the ambulance service, engendering a positive and progressive relationship over the past seven or eight years. Where the scheme is in operation, if somebody rings "999", an ambulance is dispatched and the person in the ambulance centre would also ring a local volunteer who would have a defibrillator, oxygen and other first aid equipment. That person would also be trained and tested to an acceptable standard to carry out work.

In County Wicklow we are very lucky to have approximately 500 individuals at 33 locations around the county who have been called out on 1,500 occasions in the past seven years. They have saved lives, and a newspaper article detailed how a young girl in Tinahely was saved in a doctor's surgery by the community first responders. The scheme is recommended by the Irish Heart Foundation and heart authorities in Britain. It has competed in many competitions around the country.

Over the past number of years the group would have been called out for problems in five categories, including chest pain, heart attack, cardiac and respiratory arrest, breathing difficulties, stroke and choking. The Pre-hospital Emergency Care Council, PHECC, in its wisdom, has in the past year changed the call-out criteria, which are now limited to chest pain and choking. There is grave concern among volunteers that if the proposals are implemented - it looks like they will be - the scheme will collapse. This will happen because it will not be utilised to the extent that it could be, as the lifeblood of the scheme is getting called out to assist in the community. In addition, volunteers have come under pressure in the past few weeks within the local communities; in one case where they were not called out in Blessington, there was a backlash.

This scheme costs the HSE nothing aside from the initial training. When Deputy Doyle was involved with the HSE, he was instrumental in getting funding for that training. The volunteers now self-train, with two or three groups in Wicklow waiting to join; approximately twice every year 50 new members are trained on a voluntary basis. It is one of the most positive and progressive groups of people that I have met in my time, and it is frustrating that the scheme is in danger. This is not about cutting back or lack of resources. I listened to a HSE official talk about smarter use of our resources but this resource will not continue unless the Minister takes direct action and we have a little common sense.

I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Health. I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue and for the opportunity to discuss the recent policy developments associated with it. Community response in various forms has long been an important support in the delivery of health care in Ireland and, in particular, in pre-hospital care for people who have been unfortunate enough to suffer serious illness or injury. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the enormous voluntary contribution, commitment and assistance offered by various schemes in responding to emergency calls over the years.

There are two types of priority emergency call-out in Ireland for the national ambulance service. ECHO calls are for situations involving life-threatening cardiac or respiratory arrest and DELTA calls involve life-threatening situations other than cardiac or respiratory arrest. The national standard for addressing ECHO and DELTA calls is the EMS priority dispatch standard, which is issued by the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council, PHECC. Under this standard, ECHO calls may be responded to by cardiac first responders, but DELTA calls require a minimum response of a trained emergency first responder. The new policy was approved on 27 March 2012. It will ensure that the integration of cardiac first responder schemes into priority 999 call responses has a robust governance framework in place. As a consequence, however, neither HIQA nor PHECC standards support the dispatch of community first responders to DELTA calls any longer. There is, therefore, a significant clinical and governance risk in using community first responders for DELTA calls and this practice will have to stop.

I would like to emphasise that the use of community first responder schemes is still important and will remain so. These volunteers are found in workplaces, sports clubs, at public events and within local communities, as the Deputy said. They are often first on the scene at an incident and they are in an ideal position to use their training to provide care and treatment until further assistance arrives. However, the use of community first responders as a dispatched first response to 999 calls was developed before the introduction of national clinical standards for emergency responses and cannot be sustained, other than for ECHO cardiac and respiratory call-outs. Should a community group wish to be able to respond to DELTA priority emergency call-outs, then the responders would need to be certified at emergency first responder level. Standard national training courses are available from approved bodies and the national ambulance service, through local liaison managers, would welcome approaches from groups and individuals who wish to contribute in this way to the provision of emergency services in their communities.

When Fine Gael was in opposition, we moved a good samaritan Bill on two occasions. The previous Government followed a recommendation from the Law Reform Commission integrated into a Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which was passed by this Dáil. Its purpose is to give a defence to an action for an individual who assists someone else in good faith and who, whether through omission or commission, adds to the injury. If something is not broken, one should not fix it. The Minister of State's reply sounded nice. I spoke to the Minister of Health about this issue earlier but the reply contained a lot of bureaucratic waffle and I say that with deference to the Minister of State, whom I do not blame personally. However, she should go back to the Minister to examine this issue. Of the 1,500 calls responded to last year, I am not aware of one complaint by a member of the public. I regret that I can almost assure the Minister of State that if the current policy remains in place, the scheme will collapse. A total of 500 people work on a voluntary basis, mostly in isolated areas with little immediate access to the national ambulance service within a certain timeframe. These areas, which are represented by Deputy Doyle, myself and others, will suffer. The previous Minister for Health set about replicating the scheme throughout the country.

The standard of the people trained as community first responders is excellent. They have won awards and they are of the highest calibre. They are hugely committed but they are seething and frustrated at the bureaucratic nature of the HSE over the recent period. They had an excellent relationship with the ambulance service of the old health board, which was progressive and took this issue on board when other ambulance services did not. There was resistance in other areas because people working in the ambulance service felt they would be replaced by volunteers. This is an invaluable resource to an area and if we let it slip, I will hang my head in shame. The Minister of State should go back to the bureaucrats. When we were on the Opposition benches, we spoke about them consistently. It would be a poor day if we allowed this scheme to collapse based on a load of waffle, with no tangible evidence that the current scheme has caused trouble or that the new standards will bring about improvement.

In this instance, we cannot blame the HSE. Its officials are not recommending that the procedure and the clinical standards be changed. It is important that we recognise that community first responders did significant good work in the past and, hopefully, they will continue to do so. There are times when there are unintended consequences following the introduction of particular standards and I will speak to the Minister again about this. Perhaps additional training needs to be provided to satisfy HIQA and the other groups involved. It would be a sorry day if this group of volunteers were lost to any community.

I apologise to Deputy Doyle for being unable to facilitate him.

Social Welfare Code

The Minister of State will be aware of the domiciliary care allowance, DCA, system from her constituency and ministerial work. Last year, 403 reviews were carried out on individual DCA payments. Between September 2011 and March 2012, 213 reviews resulted in the withdrawal of the payment. DCA is a gateway payment and, therefore, its withdrawal quickly precipitates the loss of carer's allowance and associated benefits. The review process can result in significant financial loss to families with special needs children. The withdrawal of DCA and, for instance, the respite care grant means an automatic loss of €5,408 per annum. In other cases, carer's allowance is also lost and that can be the principal social welfare payment of a household. It is vital that the review process is fair and, currently, that is far from the case. I have debated this with the Minister for Social Protection on a number of occasions and some progress has been made.

Parents are not given sufficient notice of the review to gather supporting documentation from consultants, therapists etc, which is necessary to re-establish successfully their eligibility for the payment. They have received letters in a number of cases giving them only three weeks notice of a review. I suggested to the departmental officials responsible for information technology and the Minister at a joint committee meeting that an automatic notice of review should be sent six months in advance. Following my intervention, I was delighted the Minister said she would consider extending the notice period to two or three months. What is the updated position? Has that happened?

A desk review of documentation can result in the cessation of payment. When we debated this, I proposed to the Minister that no payment should be stopped without the Department first meeting the claimant and affording him or her the opportunity of an oral hearing, given the crisis that can result from the withdrawal of payment. Has that policy change been implemented?

Since the last time I debated the issue with the Minister, the position has worsened. It has come to my attention that due to a backlog of reviews in the Department, as opposed to in the social welfare appeals office, a number of DCA payments were cut off before the desk review had been conducted at all. For example, a parent has been written to and told a review would take place, has submitted the forms and all the supporting documents, all of which are on time. When the conclusion of the notice period arrives, however, their payment is cut off because no decision has been made. It seems to be an automatic cut-off, which is wrong in the extreme. Does the Minister of State agree this is of great concern and seems to suggest the overriding concern of the Department is cost saving rather than the needs of the disabled children?

At the very least, will the Minister ensure no payment is cut off in advance of the completion of the review? It is not good enough to say, "We will find in favour whenever we get around to the review and we will backdate it". This causes hardship and the supplementary welfare allowance scheme does not cover the full loss. We must remember we are dealing with a child of significant needs in the first instance.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. He is correct that it is not just a relevant but a very pertinent issue that is being dealt with on an ongoing basis. Domiciliary care allowance is currently paid to more than 24,000 parents and guardians in respect of 26,000 children at a cost of approximately €100 million in 2011, with the accompanying respite care grant costing a further €45 million. In addition, the Department makes an extensive range of payments to support families with children. In 2011, some €2.08 billion was paid out in respect of 1.13 million children on child benefit. Qualified child increases were also paid to people on social welfare payments in respect of some 495,000 children - 369,000 at full rate and 126,000 at half rate.

Domiciliary care allowance can be paid in respect of children under 16 years of age who have a disability so severe that it requires the child needing care and attention and-or supervision substantially in excess of another child of the same age. This care and attention must be given by another person, effectively full-time, so that the child can deal with the activities of daily living. The child must be likely to require this level of care and attention for at least 12 months.

A review policy is an integral part of all social welfare schemes and is necessary to ensure payments continue to be made only to those customers who meet the qualifying conditions. Domiciliary care allowance cases are routinely reviewed to ensure all the conditions for receipt of the payment continue to be met. Cases are reviewed based on either a scheduled review on the recommendation of the medical assessor when the claim is initially processed or on information received about a change of circumstances which potentially affects the continued entitlement of a case already in payment.

Scheduled reviews, on the recommendation of the medical assessor, are based on the prognosis of the child's disability and how their care needs may change over time. Customers who are reviewed are asked to provide relevant up-to-date medical evidence and details of the additional care needs of their child. This information is assessed by a medical adviser and a decision is made based on the medical opinion he or she provides. Where payment is stopped as a result of a review, the customer is invited to submit any further information he or she may wish to have considered, and that information is further examined and-or he or she may appeal the decision directly to the social welfare appeals office.

Eligibility for domiciliary care allowance is not based primarily on the medical or psychological condition, but on the resulting lack of function of body or mind necessitating the degree of extra care and attention required. Each application is assessed on an individual basis taking account of the evidence submitted. No specific condition or disability rules a child in or out of qualifying for the allowance.

An expert medical group was established in advance of the transfer to this Department in 2009 and recommended that the most appropriate way for the Department to conduct assessments for medical eligibility was by way of desk assessment of the evidence submitted by the claimant, as provided by themselves and the medical staff who regularly see the child. It was considered that it was not necessary for the child to be physically examined by the Department's medical assessors as the diagnosis of the child's condition by their GP is accepted. What is being assessed is the level of additional care and attention the child requires as a result of that condition or disability and if this is substantially in excess of that required by a child of the same age without the condition.

The effective and efficient operation of the scheme is monitored regularly and any improvements to the delivery of service that are identified are implemented. I assure the Deputy that the Department is committed to ensuring those children who meet the conditions for the scheme will continue to receive payments.

I took the time to peruse the online discussion forums for parents of children with special needs. I strongly advise any Deputy but, in particular, the Ministers to look at sites such as www.magicmum.com or www.rollercoaster.ie as well as the various Facebook pages, which show a level of confusion and fear about the reviews. If anything, I ask the Minister of State to take the time to clarify, as she has in regard to some of this, what the reviews are about. The level of fear evident among some of the domiciliary care allowance recipients is somewhat out of synch with the scale of the review-based control system. Nonetheless, I am not opposed to the reviews once they are fair, notice is given and only on completion is a decision made to end or confirm payment.

The fear is in some degree led by the unfairness and lack of transparency, and I ask the Minister of State to end the confusion. A substantial group of 24,000 people are in receipt of this payment but we have sent out mail shots to many more. I ask that a letter would go to each recipient informing him or her whether a review was recommended in the first instance by the medical officer who decided his or her case, given there will not be a review in many cases. If there is a review, the recipient should be informed whether it is a three year or five year review, or otherwise, and when the next review is scheduled to take place, which will give enough notice. Recipients should also receive advice on what supporting documentation they need to keep on an ongoing basis and what to have ready, and they should be encouraged to write a diary of the extra care needs of their child so they can present the full position. This would also facilitate the Department.

Given the level of fear that exists and the concerns people are raising, will the Minister meet the parent and carer's representatives so they can better articulate what I have tried to articulate today?

I cannot give any commitment on behalf of the Minister, as the Deputy will understand, but I will definitely convey the request.

I thank the Minister of State.

The Deputy's suggestion is very helpful and I will also convey that. From my experience of children with disabilities, there are children who will not progress - we know that because it is obvious and we do not need to go into specifics. It is not even in one particular area. Children with autism can sometimes be on the very mild end of the scale and in other cases on the profound end, and there is a whole range of categories. However, as someone who is interested in ensuring people with disabilities progress in life in as independent a way as possible, I would expect there are certain children who would progress and that training and involvement in school and with their local community would ensure them the level of attention and detail they need. For example, the expectation is that when a three, four or five year old with certain needs reaches eight or nine years of age, the level of dependence would have diminished. The review process is about that more than anything else.

I regret there is confusion. I understand that when a letter such as this comes in the door, into circumstances where people felt secure in the past, it can lead to a certain amount of confusion, and not just of insecurity. I will convey the Deputy's remarks to the Minister.

Top
Share