Item No. 2 deals with a presentation by officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs regarding the administration of the unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and disability benefit schemes which will be followed by a question and answer session. I welcome Mr. Niall Barry, who will make the presentation; Mr. Leonard Burke and Ms Maeve Farrell, from the section of the Department which deals with the unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit schemes; Mr. Michael Sullivan and Ms Mary Hallissey, from the section which deals with the disability benefit scheme and Mr. Tim Quirke from the section which deals with legislation who will answer questions. They are all welcome. I remind them that while the comments of members are protected by parliamentary privilege, those of visitors are not. After that little forewarning, I now invite Mr. Niall Barry to make the presentation to the committee.
Social Welfare Benefit Schemes: Presentation.
Mr. Niall Barry
Thank you, Chairman. You kindly made the introductions so I will not repeat them. The brief we received was to the effect that the committee wanted to focus on the administration and interpretation of the guidelines so I thought I would start by giving some general information on the way we apply guidelines in the various schemes and particularly in disability benefit and unemployment benefit as mentioned by the committee. Mr. Mike Sullivan will deal with the disability benefit aspect and Mr. Leonard Burke will deal with unemployment benefit and if specific issues arise, we can deal with those later.
In line with what we were asked to do, I will give some general background on deciding officers, their powers and the discretion available to them. Deciding officers were appointed by the Minister for the purposes of the Act. There are more than 2,000 deciding officers in the Department. The deciding officer is empowered to decide certain questions in relation to social insurance and assistance except for social welfare allowance. The deciding officers tend to specialise in particular claim types, depending on where they are working, so the deciding officers in our disability benefits area would decide on disability benefit claims rather than anything else.
The deciding officer decides on every question of a claim for benefit, including whether it is payable, the rates for that claim, the increases for adult and child dependants, whether disqualification applies and also the period of that disqualification. Some general provisions, which are in the next section of the documentation, relate to social insurance, social assistance and insurability.
The deciding officer decides on disqualification from payment. If there is a late claim or a payment due in respect of loss of purchasing power, if there are payees other than the claimant or the beneficiary and if there is more than one payment under the Social Welfare Act, disqualification may arise. The deciding officer also has decision powers in relation to certain payments after death and disqualification due to absence or imprisonment. In addition to that, the deciding officer would decide the insurability of employment, including the contribution rate, who is or was the employer, should that be an issue, and the claimant's entitlement to become a voluntary contributor.
The deciding officer does not decide on determinations of non-statutory schemes, for example, free schemes - back to education and back to work - or on the granting of credits and if there is not sufficient information available to make a decision, that is not a deciding officer's decision. That would be a decision for an official in the Department. The decisions on supplementary welfare allowance are made by health board officials in accordance with legislation and guidelines.
The deciding officer can make revised decisions where there is new evidence, a mistake has been made or there is a change in circumstances. In communicating those revised decisions, the deciding officer will communicate the relevant provisions and the reasons for such a revised decision.
I understand the committee is particularly interested in the consistency in decision making. The aids available to the Department to try to bring about some sort of consistency include the legal provisions in the Acts and regulations. Guidelines issued by management are very much a feature of the decisions and these guidelines are available on the Department's website as stipulated by section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act. They are found under the "Freedom of Information" heading on the Department's website. These guidelines are also available to all internal staff. More than 130 guidelines comprising 2,000 pages have been published.
The law is applied strictly to each case for decision. If the courts make a particular decision, that would result in revised guidelines. The guidelines would include a precedent element, if that was necessary, and the results of any appeals decisions.
More support for deciding officers lies in the establishment of the Decisions Advisory Office which was established in 1992. The idea behind that was to provide some sort of oversight of the decision-making process and support, guidelines and training for deciding officers. The Decisions Advisory Office issues bulletins, provides advice over the telephone, responds to e-mails, etc., provides information and training and liaises with some third parties, for example, the Appeals Office and the Ombudsman. Our staff development unit also provides basic and advanced deciding officer training.
On the form of decisions made, there is a legal requirement to provide a fully signed decision in writing and if it is unfavourable, it has to show all legal grounds for the decision, give full and clear reasons for it and the relevant facts and evidence. Most decisions are communicated by a standard letter which invites the claimant to provide further evidence, if required, and advises on the steps to take if not satisfied. They can apply for a review of the case if they believe all the evidence has not been taken into consideration or they can appeal the decision, and instructions for doing that are contained in the standard letter they receive.
Some guidelines might be of particular interest in terms of the natural justice issue. Staff would be made aware of the rules laid down by the courts in this area over the years. The main features of these guidelines would be the right to rebut or the comment on evidence before a decision is made. Incidentally, when it comes to a decision the burden of proof rests with the claimant initially but if the Department subsequently adversely affects the claim, the burden of proof is on the Department.
The deciding officer may not take hearsay evidence into account. The deciding officer must make an independent judgment, cannot refer the case to anybody else and cannot decide on cases in which he or she knows the people involved. The claimant is also entitled to full disclosure of the documents taken into account by the deciding officer.
There is also a right of review and a right of appeal. The Department encourages dissatisfied customers to seek a review as we believe this is a quick way of getting the decision examined again. All notifications tell the recipient that they can request this review or an appeal.
The appeals officer in turn may decide on the case summarily or at oral hearing, and that decision is final except on a point of law. If there is a decision under appeal from a deciding officer, that decision can only be revised in favour of the claimant while it is under appeal; it cannot be revised to the detriment of the claimant. In the case of supplementary welfare allowance, that can be appealed to the supervisor community welfare officer and then on to the appeals office also.
In relation to the figures for the claims on appeal, in 2001, the last year for which I have the full figures available to me, unemployment assistance and benefit claims decisions were upheld in 67% of the cases and if we count revised decisions and those claims withdrawn, that is 82% of cases. Similarly, on the disability benefit side, 75% of claims were upheld, revised or withdrawn.
In regard to the disability benefit scheme, the basic conditions, with which I am sure most people are familiar, is that a claimant must be unfit for work due to illness; he or she must be over 16 and under 66; he or she must have 39 contributions paid or credited in the governing contribution year and must have 13 in a recent year. In the case of job sharers, they can qualify with 26 contributions in each of the past two tax years.
On the duration of disability benefit, if the person is qualified but has fewer than 260 contributions, that is five years contributions in total, payment can last for a year. With more contributions the payment can last until the age of 66 years, provided the claimant is still unfit for work. If the claimant does not have a weekly certificate, he or she does not get a payment. The average duration of a disability claim is 12 weeks.
In 2001 more than 125,000 claims were processed and the average amount paid per week was more than €50,000. Adult dependant allowance was paid in respect of 7,500 adults and child dependant allowance in respect of 42,000 children. A total of 245 staff are involved in the disability benefit area. Expenditure on the scheme in 2001 was €340 million while the estimated expenditure for this year is €384 million, which equates to a weekly payment of approximately €7.5 million and a daily payment of €1.5 million.
Control of the scheme takes different forms. The main one has to do with medical referral and assessment. In 2001 the number of cases called for medical examination amounted to 40,363. On foot of these examinations 6,129 claims were disallowed. Other ways of controlling the scheme include monthly commencement of employment notifications from Revenue, by which we know someone has taken up employment again; monitoring by social welfare inspectors; targeted reviews on particular occupations, and internal monitoring of discrepancies in insurance and payments records.
Those participating in the scheme must observe the rules of behaviour which are part of the claim form. They state participants must follow doctors' instructions and behave in a way that is not likely to delay their return to work. Rule 5, in particular, states they may not do any work unless it is rehabilitative or for retraining purposes. The back-to-work scheme was extended to those in receipt of long-term disability benefit, that is, those in receipt of benefit for at least three years.
There are common conditions for unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. For both benefits a claimant must be unemployed for at least three days in any period of six days, available for full-time work, genuinely seeking work and physically and mentally capable of employment. A claimant of unemployment benefit must also suffer a substantial loss of employment, satisfy the contribution conditions - 39 weeks minimum in the last governing contribution year or 26 weeks in both the governing contribution year and the previous year - and be aged up to 66 years. Unemployment benefit lasts for 15 months, or 390 days, of claimed unemployment. A claimant of unemployment assistance must be aged between 18 and 66 years and satisfy a means test. There is no maximum duration for this payment.
The table which I have distributed to members shows fluctuations on the live register between 1999 and 2002 by scheme and sex. There was a drop between 1999 and 2001 but a slight rise in 2002. Expenditure on unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance is laid out in a table which has been circulated. This shows a steady climb in the amounts paid. This year's Estimates are €412 million for unemployment benefit and €542 million for unemployment assistance.
Control measures in respect of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit include a requirement on the claimant to attend a local office or signing centre as often as requested, usually once every four weeks, and sign a statutory declaration confirming that the conditions of the benefit are satisfied. There is also a requirement to produce evidence of seeking employment when requested. Internal system checks are also carried out.
A claimant can be disqualified for up to nine weeks if he or she has voluntarily left employment without good reason, lost employment through misconduct, refused an offer of work or suitable training, failed or neglected to avail of a reasonable opportunity of obtaining employment or, in the case of unemployment benefit, if the redundancy payment is greater than €19,000 and the claimant is less than 55-years old. There are also disqualifications for as long as a person is resident in a publicly funded institution, such as a hospital, absent from the State - although a claimant is allowed two weeks holiday per year - in prison or employed on a community scheme.
A claimant must be able to demonstrate genuine efforts to seek suitable employment and the claim will be disallowed if the evidence is unsatisfactory. We have issued guidelines in this area. In deciding whether employment is suitable we have regard to the age, occupation, family circumstances, qualifications, skills and work experience of the claimaint, availability and location of employment and the efforts made by the claimant in previous weeks to secure employment.
The final table shows the disallowances of claimants deemed not to be genuinely seeking work or not available for work. The figure for this year to date represents less than 5% of claimants. In previous years it has ranged as high as 10%.
I welcome the officials and I am delighted they are present. While I have some criticisms of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, in many ways it does a good job. As a public representative, I find it difficult to get information from it during the summer months, but it is excellent when the Dáil is in session. This is something at which it might look. When the Dáil resumes after a recess of a number of weeks, a large number of questions are submitted. Members of the general public report a similar experience of the Department during the summer months. For about six days my local radio station dealt with complaints that the telephone was not being answered in the child benefit section in County Donegal and that when answered callers were being told the office was too busy to deal with queries. Mr. Barry might look at this matter.
Why are claimants who have produced three, four or even eight job applications still told they are not genuinely seeking work? I know of a group preparing a legal case on this matter. They are unemployed and do not have the resources to fight a case in court. However, help is now being organised for them. They feel they are being badly treated by the Department. They are making genuine efforts to look for work.
Last week I heard of a person who came off a FÁS scheme and whose record showed he had been trained. When he claimed unemployment assistance, he was told he had to go out and look for work. When he came back with three or four letters, he was told to look for work in a town 50 miles from his home. What can be done about this and what is the legal standing of these letters?
A client of mine had been working consistently for 16 years but the company she was working for modernised its office equipment and had to put staff on a three-day week. She actively looked for work, brought evidence of this to those responsible for social welfare and was told by them that she was not genuinely seeking work. To be fair to her, she had a good record and had worked for 16 years with the one company. She was upset when she was told she was not genuinely seeking work because she felt all she was drawing was her own money.
In regard to oral hearings, why does the Department insist on having more people examined? I compliment and support the Department in catching anyone defrauding the State, but in respect of people seeking carer's allowance, unemployment benefit or whatever, there can in some cases be six to nine month waiting lists for oral hearings. This is discriminating against the people in question. I ask those concerned to examine the matter again.
If somebody wants an oral hearing, he should not have to wait more than a month as in the meantime it is necessary for him to go to the community welfare officers to get assistance from the health board. The money comes from the same kitty. If the benefit of the doubt has to be given, it should be given to the client rather than to the Department. Fraud is a different matter, which I do not support, nor do I think does anybody here.
We will take a number of questions.
I welcome the officials of the Department and compliment them on their submission. There are a number of questions I wish to ask, but Deputy Ring has asked a large number of questions. I hope we do not get bogged down and that my questions will all be answered.
Does the Department pay interest to claimants in the event of their claims being finally resolved in their favour given that, in some cases, it takes up to six months or longer to have them resolved? In the interim, all they get is supplementary welfare. Obviously, that is at a rate lower than that to which they are entitled. Has any judgment been made or has the matter been investigated by anybody, such as the Ombudsman, in terms of the question of interest?
What is the position regarding the Department and medical opinion? Has it a resident group of medical people and what qualifications have they? If somebody is referred by his own orthopaedic surgeon, is there a person with comparable qualifications in the Department dealing with the issue and is the list of the consultants that the Department uses available? Does it use consultants from outside the Department? Are they seconded or hired on the basis of individual cases or on a contract basis for all cases?
A total of 40,000 people applied and medical opinion was sought and adjudicated on. According to the figures, 6,000 people were disallowed. The other issue is a very thorny one and concerns the question of whether people are genuinely seeking work. Are the guidelines on this matter the same for every area of the country? If so, it is wrong. For example, a person in a town or city where there is public transport has a greater opportunity of getting employment than somebody in a rural area.
People who live 15 miles from a centre of population, even a small town, are being asked if they are seeking work in that town or another equidistant one. How do the authorities expect people who have to walk or cycle to get to these towns to take up employment?
What the Department is doing in this regard is totally unrealistic. I know another Member has raised the matter, but unless I hear today that there are different guidelines that apply to different areas and that there are various zones, I will insist that the Department make changes because people in rural areas are being discriminated against. Their claims are being held up for extraordinary lengths of time in many cases. The number of letters people are expected to present is totally unrealistic. If a Department official sees that somebody is living 15 miles away from the town of Athlone, Roscommon or anywhere else and he says to that person that he should seek work in that town, it is not taking the reality of the person's situation into consideration.
During my time on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Strategic Management Initiative, the Appeals Office received favourable comments. Those concerned with social welfare were complimented at that time. How is that office operating now and from where are the appeals officers drawn?
In respect of disability conditions, one must have 39 contributions paid or credited in the contribution year governing one's claim. There is also a requirement that one must have 13 contributions in a recent year. What is meant by "a recent year" or should that be "a previous year"?
With regard to somebody who is sent to a medical referee, one of the issues that strikes me most is the total insensitivity evident in the medical interviews. When somebody is making a genuine claim, it is important that there be confidence in the process. It has been reported to me and some of my colleagues that claimants go to some doctors - I am not saying all doctors because I do not want to tar everyone with the one brush - who give the impression that they are not interested and are not prepared to give a realistic examination. One is brought into a cold room on some occasions, after travelling for two or three hours to get there, and told: "Stand up, bend down, sorry, I am satisfied." That is not a proper examination. If we bring someone in who has a case to make and who may have a medical report from an independent doctor, the examination by the medical practitioner should be more comprehensive. I would like the officials to comment on that.
There was reference to the burden of proof and that it informs justice guidelines. Is it suggested that on occasions the burden of proof is with the applicant? Or is it for the Department, when considering an appeal, to be satisfied that a person is fit for work? What is the arrangement for somebody involved in a trade union dispute who would seek payment in respect of unemployment benefit?
Before calling on the next group of members I propose to ask the officials to respond to the questions raised.
Mr. Burke
I will deal with the questions on unemployment payment. Deputy Ring mentioned a number of specific cases which, if he wishes, we can consider subsequently. With regard to the production of letters, ordinarily we require evidence that claimants have been seeking work. That may or may not entail documentary evidence and we may seek it from several employers.
With regard to travelling long distances, we would expect that a person would travel only if public transport was available or there was a way in which he or she could access a town or village some distance away. In all instances we temper such requirements with the criterion of reasonableness. It would have to be reasonable for the person to take up employment. This would mean if public transport was available the person would be expected to use it. While one of two people in the same locality might have access to public or private transport a different decision might be made in each case.
A person could be laid off for a short period for a number of reasons. The person could be on systematic short-time or may no longer be employed full-time but casually employed. If, for example, a person had an employment contract precluding him or her from being available for other employment he or she would not be entitled to an unemployment payment because it would mean putting a restriction on his or her availability for work.
Deputy Finneran asked about interest payments to claimants. Where we are waiting for a person to provide us with information we would not pay compensation. However, a payment would be made in the case of a retrospective decision, taking into consideration the loss of purchasing power.
The guidelines requiring claimants to be genuinely seeking work vary from area to area and are dependent on local economic circumstances. We consider this to be the fairest way in which to deal with situations. A blanket set of guidelines does not apply throughout the country as we must take into consideration local circumstances.
Ordinarily those involved in trade union disputes would not be entitled to a payment. However, a social welfare tribunal was established in 1982 to deal with such cases.
In cases where there is no public transport, how far is a person expected to cycle to work?
Mr. Burke
That would depend on the distance. It would be unreasonable to ask somebody to cycle 50 miles. Local circumstances would dictate and the deciding officer would give the person every opportunity to explain why it was not possible to make the trip to take up the employment.
Surely guidelines cover this aspect. For example, is the requirement one, three or five miles?
Mr. Burke
Normally we would have regard to the local circumstance. It would be inappropriate for us to stipulate the number of miles.
Is it not dangerous to require people to cycle even three miles on roads that have very heavy traffic and where they would be travelling in darkness?
Mr. Burke
I am not aware of cases where we have asked people to cycle to and form work in darkness. It would be unreasonable for us to impose such obligations. In the training sessions available to them we advise deciding officers to have regard to that aspect.
The Department will have to ensure better co-ordination among the officers. People are angry and upset. There is no employment in Ballycastle and no public transport, although there is a limited private bus service. I know of one man who availed of a FÁS scheme but when he went to seek his benefits he was told he would have to travel approximately 35 miles to Ballina. He has no car, has four children and he wants to work.
Some Department officials are reasonable but others are not. I know of a woman who has worked consistently for six years. She cannot afford to be off work because she is the only person earning in the household. Despite having paid her stamps and her dues she was deemed ineligible for benefit payments because she was not considered to be actively seeking work.
The new trend by employers is to advertise box numbers in the newspapers, yet when people actively seeking work respond to them they do not get a reply. Factors such as these must be taken into consideration. It is getting to the point where somebody who is genuinely looking for work will take the Department to court.
Similar problems arise with seasonal work. There is only two or three years of work left at Ballacorrick. People have worked there for 30 years without any difficulties from the Department, yet new circulars, first issued a couple of years ago in respect of bus drivers, have been circulated affecting their position. They would take full-time employment if it was available. The application of common sense often helps in these situations.
Mr. Burke
We can consider specific cases raised by the Deputy. It is reasonable for us to expect those involved in seasonal employment that may not be available in the longer term to seek other employment in their area. Regard would be given to local circumstances, including the availability of work.
We would not ask people to look for work if it was not available.
What is the position on medical appeals?
Ms Hallisey
The Department pays interest to clients when a claim is finally resolved but only where we are at fault, for example, where we mislaid or failed to deal with information submitted by a client, such as details of contributions made.
When did the practice of paying interest by the Department commence?
Ms Hallisey
Two or three years ago.
Has an audit been done on the Department's experience in this area?
Ms Hallisey
I have dealt with some cases where interest has been paid, but payments are only made where the Department is at fault and responsible for delaying the claim. With regard to medical opinion, the medical assessors - they were called medical referees - are employees of the Department and fully qualified doctors. A number would be qualified in occupational medicine. There is a chief medical adviser, a deputy and 21 or 22 medical assessors to whom our clients are referred.
With regard to the DB conditions, the regulations prescribe a period of five years, that is, the current year, the two previous governing contribution years and the most recent tax year. If a person can show that 13 contributions were made in any one of the five years, that satisfies the condition. It is concerned with attachment to the workforce.
What about those who must attend the doctor and the perception of insensitivity?
Ms Hallisey
As part of the control of the disability benefit scheme we refer clients. All we can do is relay the Deputy's concerns to the Department regarding the way in which doctors examine people. We do not have a direct input into that aspect. We refer clients who get a letter from the Department inviting them to an examination. Their GP is also notified. The GP can submit further medical evidence, after which it becomes a matter for the client and the Department's medical assessor.
There is a procedure involved and the client has no say. I receive many representations on this aspect. Many people are unhappy with the type of medical examination they undergo. I would like a response to my concerns.
Mr. Sullivan
Last year we distributed a questionnaire on this aspect. One question asked clients if they were satisfied with the way they were treated by medical referees. As I recall, 85% said they were and 15% said they were not.
Are you satisfied with that finding?
Mr. Sullivan
No, but dissatisfaction is not widespread.
You will not get negative comment because people are afraid they will have to be re-examined. However, they let us know of their concerns. A medical referee will recall people on a regular basis. They will, therefore, not make complaints.
Mr. Sullivan
The survey was anonymous.
Doctors complain to me that the Department and medical referees overrule their recommendations. Doctors differ and patients die. In view of this perhaps general practitioners should be involved, not medical referees. Especially with regard to carer's allowance, doctors find that their often strong recommendations are overruled, if not by a medical referee, by an official who may not be a medical expert.
Mr. Sullivan
Our medical assessors are regarded as being experts in occupational medicine. While a person might be sick, he or she may be able to work. A conflict between the doctor and medical assessor could arise in that instance. The medical assessor is concerned with ascertaining if the person is capable of doing any kind of work. That is a question of medical knowledge. We are not experts on that aspect.
Perhaps it would be possible to get definite information on those employed by the Department in this area. How many with a medical qualification are employed by the Department to deal with medical assessment? What are their qualifications? Are they consultants and in what areas do they specialise?
Those involved in public life are caught in the middle on this issue. Constituents are often strongly advised by their consultant - not their GP - that it is unsafe for them to return to work. According to my feedback, medical referees often do not have the same level of qualification as consultants. Perhaps the Department would forward a list of its medical referees, including their qualifications, so that we, as politicians, can address the matter in public. Constituents and, in many instances, doctors are deeply resentful. More than one consultant has told me that one referee in the Department has no qualifications comparable with theirs and is yet overriding their decisions. This issue needs to be clarified.
I agree with Deputy Finneran's position on the apparent disparity in qualifications between medical referees in the Department and outside doctors and consultants. Has a survey been done in the Department of the length of medical examinations? It is difficult to carry out a comprehensive examination in a short period. This is especially important for claimants with back, leg or neck problems. Does the Department have specialists such as neurologists or orthopaedic surgeons dealing with those types of assessments? If someone supplies a medical report prepared by an eminent consultant orthopaedic surgeon, what way is it treated in the evaluation of the claim?
Mr. Barry
There are a number of issues for which we are not prepared, so I do not know what the procedure will be, but I will supply material to the committee on those topics. We will give some general answers now but I will supplement them with further information later.
I would appreciate if you could come back to us with that.
What redress have the many people who go before medical referees and say they have been treated badly? Can they make further appeals? Constituents complain to me that they have presented letters which have been put aside and who have been told the medical referees do not want to see them. That is not good enough.
Mr. Sullivan
These people can make an appeal to the independent appeals office if they are not happy with the medical referee's assessment and many do.
Are medical people available to the appeals office?
I am concerned about a number of issues. A weekly certificate of illness must be provided for disability benefit but, in many instances, weekly certification seems unnecessary. If someone is hospitalised, has a broken leg or suffers from a long-term illness, it is likely they will be out for a period. Requiring patients to renew their certificates on a weekly basis almost makes a farce of doctor's certificates. This costs the State, patients and the doctors in terms of time and money because many people in doctors' waiting rooms are there only to get this type of certification.
It is stated that a person must be mentally fit for employment in order to claim unemployment benefit and assistance. I would like some feedback on who determines that. How far is it fair to ask people seeking employment to travel? It may be fair to ask them to travel from a village to a town - perhaps four miles - but to reverse that journey may be unfair. In Cavan and Monaghan public transport is not provided to ferry people to and from work during working hours. That must be taken on board and I share the concerns already expressed. Three letters from prospective employers are sought to prove a person is genuinely seeking employment but the word can spread that people should approach three particular companies on the basis it is known the company is not hiring. Likewise, other prospective employers may not be asked for such letters because they may want staff but pay poorly. This creates pointless bureaucracy. The system should know when staff are sought in five or six sectors and suggest clients approach these employers. Otherwise, we will continue to play the game with people giving this evidence in return for benefits. These issues need to be addressed.
On a positive note, I welcome the rehabilitation and back-to-work schemes which people may take up on a part-time basis for rehabilitation or re-training. We must consider that people who have been on long-term sick leave may be unable to jump back into work immediately - they may need to be eased back into work and schemes such as this are a valuable contribution if they remove doubt as to whether people are fit to return to work.
The Deputy need not advise people to apply for the schemes because they will be abandoned the following week. He need only check the record of the Government.
That may be useful advice. I am a novice on these matters.
Do not advise them.
I am concerned about the uniformity of the application of guidelines because some 200 different officers throughout the country make the decisions and there is the potential for 2,000 different opinions.
A woman whose husband worked got acarer's allowance to look after her father, but when her husband died she got widow's pension and the carer's allowance was stopped. Now she is trying to carry on providing for her family after her husband's death with only the widow's pension. She should be entitled to a carer's allowance while being in receipt of widow's pension.
When the carer comes to pensionable age, her mother and she being already in receipt of pensions, the carer is knocked off the carer's allowance which is far less than the widow's allowance. Should she get the equivalent of the difference between them or the two together?
A number of questions have been asked already. In relation to disability benefit, what criteria are used for cutting people off. Do they have to go before a medical referee first or can they be cut off by means of a letter followed by their appealing the decision? Are people asked first to go before a medical referee? In a particular case, a woman was informed her disability benefit had been cut off and her own family doctor was raging, saying she was psychologically and physically unfit for work and he would stand over that in any way he could.
In relation to unemployment benefit, when one becomes unemployed, for the first three days one is not paid. In areas where people are engaged in casual work - where they might get six or seven weeks work in a place and they are out for another few weeks-they could be docked the initial three days and every time they would go back the same thing would happen. What is the procedure in this regard and what is the reason for this rule?
I wish to be associated with the welcome that has been extended to the Director and his officials. A number of us have expressed concerns. I represent Dublin South West which includes Tallaght where we have a new first class facility which is welcome. Unemployed people, like other people who are in difficulty, should be treated properly in good surroundings. I am glad the Tallaght office does that. Like my colleagues, I am concerned that many people approach me and in the short time I have been a Deputy, the number of social welfare queries I have received has increased considerably. I suppose when one becomes a Dáil Deputy, that is what people do. I said to the Minister on another occasion that the manner in which we access information and have queries dealt with on our behalf is excellent and I compliment the staff in that regard. However, I am confused as to why having brought material to their office and proved that they are looking for employment many of my constituents still seem to have difficulty getting the message across and convincing the system. Could we be convinced or given assurances that these matters are being dealt with in a client-friendly way because that is how it should be? One of Mr. Barry's colleagues said if there were specific cases we could bring them to his notice but I have had many cases recently where I am not convinced the system was being fair to people who were providing information and these people were still being threatened with being cut off.
Also, I highlight a problem which is particularly prevalent in urban areas, that of homelessness. My area of Tallaght suffers as much as anywhere in this regard and I am not convinced the Department and other agencies are doing as much as possible to help these people. If one is homeless one is therefore in crisis but what happens to the homeless in Tallaght is that they try to access services locally - through the local authority and the local advice bureau - but they are then sent into town on the bus to avail of other services. Many homeless people find it difficult to avail of services, particularly through the Department, because they are without an address. That is a problem.
The St. Dominic's Community Support Group, which deals with drug users and others in crisis, has asked me to highlight this problem: those who are homeless, taking drugs and in crisis find it difficult to access services because they do not have an address. What is the Department's thinking on this issue? I am told that in other jurisdictions, including some geographically close to us, facilities can be provided; that if one is homeless or taking drugs a facility can be found where a Department or local office will accept an address so that one can access services. Is it time the Department looked at this in a more radical way? I know there is a standard answer and that South Dublin County Council give the same answer in relation to housing but I wonder what the thinking is. Can we get assurances that this will be taken up by the Department to facilitate a different approach?
Mr. Barry
The Department has been examining the issue of the homeless. It might be satisfactory to come back to the Deputy on it rather than bluffing through an answer now. I am sorry I cannot answer directly.
It is not my intention to ambush Mr. Barry on any issue. I feel strongly about this issue and I am glad it is being acknowledged because it is an issue in Tallaght, where drug support groups have asked me to raise this. I am happy to leave it to Mr. Barry but I expect him to report to us. I expect other Members have an interest in this also.
Mr. Barry
This has been considered at the most senior levels in the Department but I am not in a position to give the Deputy information right now.
Mr. Burke
Regarding some of the points raised, mentally fit is defined essentially as being physically and mentally capable for work. As for travel, this is a matter of having due regard for local circumstances and access to public transport as well as the norm for the locality; how people get to and from work and whether it is reasonable to expect the unemployed can get to and from work in the same way.
In relation to the request for letters, it is an ongoing process of proving availability and looking for work, again having regard to local circumstances. I would like to think we do not threaten people with being cut off. We afford people an opportunity to prove they are available for and genuinely seeking work.
I presume we may not read that the same way. I am sorry about the word.
Mr. Burke
Yes——
I will withdraw it.
Mr. Burke
The issue of training ties in to an issue Deputy Connolly raised about guidelines, which we update regularly, taking cognisance of the economic situation and current circumstances. We regularly train our deciding officers on an ongoing basis to ensure they are familiar with the guidelines.
Senator Cummins referred to the three waiting days. They do not affect unemployment benefit claims in a 13 week period and in an unemployment assistance case over a 52 week period; the three waiting days would not be applied.
Is that for a second application?
Mr. Burke
Yes. The indication was that a person might get six or seven weeks' work and then sign on again. In those circumstances they would not have to wait.
I would like more information on two issues. Who decides on whether people are mentally fit for work? Who makes that decision? Who decides on weekly certificates in relation to disability benefit?
Mr. Sullivan
On the weekly certificates, the hand-out relates to the general case. We tried to keep the presentation as short as possible.
We have some people who send in certificates every month and those with long-term illnesses send in certificates every six months. The weekly certificates relate to general cases. There are facilities for monthly and six-monthly certificates.
And people's mental fitness?
Mr. Sullivan
In relation to mental fitness, if there were an element of doubt about a person's fitness for work, we would look for a certificate of fitness but that would be rare enough.
A certificate of mental fitness?
Mr. Sullivan
A certificate of fitness that a person is capable of working.
How will the officials deal with the appeals situation? There is great hardship and annoyance about this. I do not have my documentation with me but there is a waiting period for every appeal in the Department which is unreasonable.
Also, officials tell people to get letters. I have written to the Department on many occasions and asked, through parliamentary questions, if the Department can identify where the work is. Will the Department consider that? It has a close working relationship with FÁS. Why can the Department not say to people there is work in a certain area and then ask why they do not accept that work?
Can the Department confirm the summer jobs scheme has ended? What other schemes have ended?
What are the criteria for cutting off disability benefit?
Regarding disability benefit, does a person have to receive that benefit for three years? Some people would like to get the back to education allowance, which was brought in in October 2001. That specified one had to be three years in receipt of disability benefit to qualify for the allowance. In the past year or so I have met a small number of people who have been receiving the allowance for 15 to 18 months and who would like to get back to education as part of the rehabilitation initiative, which I applaud. That is a worthwhile attitude but perhaps the three year period could be reduced.
Mr. Barry
The appeals office is a separate statutory organisation and I cannot answer for it. I apologise for that but I cannot give an answer on that.
Mr. Quirke
The question of the carer's allowance has been raised in recent years in parliamentary questions and so on. The position is that there is a rule in the legislation which prevents people obtaining more than one social welfare payment at any one time. While a widow is entitled to a widow's pension because she has lost her husband, that is the primary payment payable because in most cases it is a contributory payment, whereas the carer's allowance is a non-contributory payment.
It is not possible for someone to be unemployed and receive sickness benefit at the same time. That general rule applies across the whole range of schemes and that prevents the concurrent payment of carer's allowance and widow's pension.
They cannot get the carer's or widow's pension? What about an old age pensioner caring for an old age pensioner?
Mr. Quirke
He or she will get whatever is the most favourable payment. In reply to Deputy Ring's question on the summer students dole scheme, it no longer comes within the remit of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. It now comes under the control of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
What about your Department? Did anything go in the last week? Is anything to go next week?
Mr. Quirke
No schemes were abolished in the Estimates.
Mr. Sullivan
The Deputy asked a question about someone being cut off. People could be cut off if their contribution conditions are not sufficient. If one has less than 260 contributions one will only get paid disability benefit for a year. The case referred to may not have happened for medical reasons. The person could still be very ill but their contributions would not allow them to be paid any more.
Mr. Burke
To answer Deputy Ring's question in regard to identifying where the work is, it is true that we work closely with FÁS. On the employment action plan at local level, staff in our offices would have available to them local details on employment which would be made available to people when signing on.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the officials for a very informative presentation and for coming here at such short notice. We are grateful to them for taking a significant number of questions, some of which were not contained in the initial brief. We were not very specific and I thank the officials for their patience. I look forward to having them back in the not too distant future. A number of issues were raised which might be replied to in writing.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.55 p.m. and adjourned at 4.10 p.m. sine die.