JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 2005

National Disability Authority: Presentation.

Chairman

This meeting of the joint committee will involve a presentation by the National Disability Authority on the national disability strategy. I welcome Ms Eithne Fitzgerald, the authority's head of policy and public affairs, and Dr. Rosarie McCarthy, the authority's senior policy and public affairs adviser, who will outline the authority's response to the strategy, as well as the sectoral plans of the various Departments. The authority's most recent correspondence has been circulated to all members of the committee. Before I invite the representatives of the authority to make some additional remarks, I will say the few words I have to say before the start of every presentation. As a former Deputy, Ms Fitzgerald will be familiar with this procedure.

Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration concerning any matter being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contribution. Members are reminded that if there is a possibility of there being a conflict of interest, they should make a declaration of interest now or at the start of their contribution. I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. While it is generally accepted that witnesses have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Having issued that bureaucratic forewarning, I call on Ms Fitzgerald to make a presentation on behalf of the National Disability Authority.

Ms Eithne Fitzgerald

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for inviting the representatives of the National Disability Authority to address this meeting. I propose to speak about some social welfare issues which impinge on issues relating to disability in the context of the outline sectoral plan on disability published by the Department of Social and Family Affairs in October 2004. A final sectoral plan will be sent to the Oireachtas for adoption on or before 29 July 2006 in line with the terms of the Disability Act 2005. The authority has been flagging some issues which relate to the sectoral plans as they have arisen on foot of its research. The authority which was established in 2000 as a statutory body to advise the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on issues relating to disability welcomes the opportunity to make a presentation to the committee about some issues relating to disability and the social welfare system, drawing on its recent research work and in the context of sectoral plans. The authority's statutory remit includes undertaking research, giving advice on standards and drafting codes of practice. It has a role in monitoring the target for the employment of people with disabilities in the public service.

According to the 2002 census, there are approximately 320,000 people with disabilities in Ireland. One in four disabled people of working age has a job, compared with 70% of non-disabled people. Social welfare pensions represent a major source of the income of the over 40% of disabled people who are aged 65 years or over. Approximately 200,000 people receive weekly social welfare payments related to illness or disability. Recent research indicates that people with disabilities are twice as likely to be living in poverty as others in our society, regardless of the way in which poverty is measured. More than twice as many people with disabilities are in the income bracket the European Union terms as being "at risk of poverty". This is closely related to social welfare dependency.

In 2001, 83% of disabled people at risk of poverty were living in homes in which nobody had a job. Of these, some 87% were living in homes which depended primarily on social welfare. One in seven disabled people — twice the rate for other adults — experiences basic deprivation. Such persons go without basics such as heat and proper meals, or get into debt when trying to meet their day-to-day living expenses. The extra costs of living encountered by people with disabilities are factors in the development of such problems. Such persons are more than twice as likely to be consistently poor, which means they experience low incomes and basic deprivation. Consistent poverty for people with disabilities did not change during the Celtic tiger years. The poverty rate for people with disabilities remained virtually unchanged between 1995 and 2001, even though it halved for other adults.

The main issues which arise in the social welfare system in seeking to reduce poverty are how to promote employment and financial independence for disabled people who can work, how to provide for adequate levels of income for those who depend on social welfare and how to assist with the extra costs of disability. A job is one of the key ways to ensure disabled people receive an adequate income and enjoy financial independence. Disabled people who do not have a problem with taking a job are significantly less likely than their peers to have a job.

A report published by the National Economic and Social Council, The Developmental Welfare State, argues that income support should be combined with the promotion of social integration, including supported pathways into work. While the back to work allowance scheme and others which allow disabled people to engage in limited work of a rehabilitative nature while retaining social welfare benefits are valuable, the committee should consider other ways in which the social welfare system can play a more supportive role in helping people with disabilities to remain in employment or take up work. People with disabilities who take up full-time work stand to lose their primary welfare payments, secondary benefits such as free travel, household benefits or rent supplement and health service benefits such as medical cards or the mobility allowance. Different research studies have identified this as an important barrier to raising employment levels.

A pilot programme has been undertaken in the midlands area, involving a partnership between the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the local Health Service Executive and FÁS, to offer tailored advice and support about employment to young people with disabilities who are between the ages of 16 and 25. This exercise could be extended to other areas and other age groups. The lessons learned from this pilot programme will be valuable in informing future policy.

Approximately four out of five disabled adults of working age acquired their disability in adult life. Recent research suggests that when people become disabled or acquire a long-term illness, the proportion at work falls by 30 percentage points. There is scope for the social welfare system to play a more active role in supporting people to remain at work after onset of a disability. For example, information could be channelled to employers of those off work for a period about the range of FÁS supports for retention of an employee who has acquired a disability. These supports, which are generous, are little used.

Some people with disabilities are not able to work a full day. At present, however, the choices are between dependence on social welfare or remaining in full-time work. Recent research suggests that payment of a partial disability payment could encourage people who might otherwise leave to remain at work and could also support others in a gradual return to work after onset of a disability.

Approximately one in four adults with disabilities can neither use public transport nor drive a car. The cost of transport to work can be a major impediment to taking a job. Free travel and the mobility allowance are generally confined to those on social welfare incomes who are not in employment. There is merit in looking at tailored assistance towards the cost of getting to work for those with disabilities who experience particular difficulties with transport. New ways of channelling tailored assistance with transport costs will be technically feasible when smart card technology is extended to all forms of public transport and to the taxi sector, which we expected to roll out in due course.

The social welfare system could play an enhanced role in supporting people with disabilities who wish to work. Examples of this are: tailored advice and assistance around getting work; an easing of the benefit traps; advice and information to employers around job retention supports; introduction of partial disability payments for those who can only work part-time; and assistance with the cost of transport to work.

Pensioners and other people with disabilities who, for whatever reason, are unable to work will continue to depend on social welfare as a primary source of income. Although social welfare payments have increased faster than inflation, they have in recent years increased at a slower pace than other incomes. This has led to a widening gap between the incomes of those dependent on social welfare and others. The proportion of disabled people living on less than 60% of the average median incomes doubled between 1995 and 2001. To maintain the position of disabled social welfare recipients relative to other income earners, social welfare payment rates would need to move in line with other incomes.

The underlying cost of living is higher for many people with disabilities. Disabled people may have above average medical and medicines bills, be obliged to pay for disability aids, have extra transport costs and incur extra costs in terms of accessing care or paying for general items such as heating, clothing or special diets. To take a simple example, it could cost a non-disabled person using Dublin Bus weekly tickets €17 per week to travel to work by bus but it could perhaps cost a person who can only travel to work by taxi €100 per week. A study commissioned by the NDA shows that the extra costs of disability vary with the nature of the disability and the severity of difficulties experienced and could add up to a quarter of the cost of living. This estimate is, however, subject to a wide margin of statistical error, a summary of which is included in the briefing material.

Secondary benefits such as free travel, household benefits and, in the health area, the medical card or the mobility allowance partially address the costs of disability issue. However, those who do not qualify for the relevant social welfare payments or who are over the income limits do not qualify for assistance with the extra costs of disability.

The Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, which reported in 1996, recommended the introduction of a cost of disability payment to cover additional costs not otherwise being met through services. The commission recommended this payment should vary in line with needs, should not be taxable and should be independent of age or employment status. Currently, most of the assistance available to those with disabilities towards these extra costs of living is channelled through secondary benefits that are largely confined to those on social welfare incomes. These benefits include free travel, household benefits, medical cards and the right to disability aids for those thereon and mobility allowance. However, there is little help towards the costs of disability for working families.

The Department of Social and Family Affairs' working group on the review of the illness and disability payment schemes concluded:

The Working Group supports the view that the costs of disability should be addressed separately rather than through higher basic income maintenance payments [which would not be targeted on those individuals whose needs are greatest] ... Furthermore, the Working Group stresses the importance of meeting the costs of disability in a way that is less dependent on labour force status, if people with disabilities are to be given the opportunity to participate in the workforce.

The NDA has estimated that tiered payments of €10, €20 and €40 per week, depending on the severity of the problem, could cost just under €170 million per year.

In this short submission, the NDA has presented some key data on poverty and disability and highlighted some of the issues of concern in the social welfare system. Under the Disability Act 2005, the Department of Social and Family Affairs has prepared an outline sectoral plan on disability issues, which is open for consultation. The final sectoral plan is to be tabled in the Oireachtas by end July of 2006. The NDA looks forward to the final plan and to a full debate on its contents by the Oireachtas before its final adoption.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome Ms Eithne Fitzgerald and Dr. Rosarie McCarthy and thank them for the information provided. As we received this briefing document just moments ago, we have not had an opportunity to study it. However, I look forward to going through it in detail. The presentation by the delegates has brought some of the salient points together. What they propose is comprehensive and user-friendly and represents up-to-date research. That all the footnotes are included at the end of the document is useful in that we can do more reading in our spare time.

It is a chilling document in that it highlights, in a few short pages, how much people with disabilities, compared to other members of society, are disadvantaged in regard to income and employment. It shows how people with disabilities are constantly playing catch-up with everyone else. The barriers with which those with disabilities are obliged cope are often put in place by society — in other words, by us. Often those barriers are more disabling than people's disabilities. This is an issue we have got to take on board. I welcome the fact that many local authorities have adopted the Barcelona Declaration. Regardless of that, however, we need to do more.

The idea of a cost of disability payment has been around since the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities reported. There has been a good deal of lobbying on the issue. Up to the recent budget, there has been no sign of it being introduced. Has the NDA any views on whether it will happen at some stage and, if so, when? Has any research been carried out on what society is losing by not supporting people with disabilities to take up employment? I know of many with disabilities who are highly skilled in various areas, and some who are not so highly skilled, who can contribute to the economy but they cannot do so because of the barriers put in place. It would be interesting to know if that issue has been examined. If one can prove nowadays that something has an economic benefit, action will be taken.

Reference was made to the outline sectoral plan of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, much of which appears to be historical rather than aspirational. Has the NDA been involved in public consultation on the plan and, if so, what additional measures should be included?

I recently carried out a survey on the cost of disability equipment that showed the extra costs that people with disabilities incur. It showed that people with disabilities are paying between 40% and 100% more than their UK counterparts on basic disability equipment. Has the NDA examined the survey, given that it highlights an extra cost and an additional barrier to people getting out and about, taking up employment and so forth? Has the NDA found that people with disabilities cannot afford necessary equipment because of the prohibitive cost?

Transport is a major issue that was referred to on a number of occasions. How big a barrier to employment is the lack of accessible transport for people with disabilities, particularly those living in rural areas? Accessible buses and taxis are available in many towns and cities and there are plans to improve the situation in respect of trains. However, transport can cause major difficulties for disabled people in rural areas. I would welcome the NDA's comments on that issue.

The NDA referred to the fact that FÁS supports for the retention of an employee who has acquired a disability are not used very much. Why is that? It appears that such supports would be very helpful but perhaps it is a matter of a lack of information. The pilot project in the midlands to which the delegation referred is very interesting.

Consistent poverty was mentioned several times. How do people with disabilities fare with regard to relative income poverty? We have different measures of poverty. The Combat Poverty Agency, for example, uses the relative income measurement.

Chairman

That is a strong collection of questions for the representatives to answer.

Ms Fitzgerald

My colleague, Dr. Rosarie McCarthy, will answer some of them and I will deal with the remainder. Dr. McCarthy is involved with the disability consultative forum of the Department and has been involved in overseeing the midlands project, so she is best placed to answer questions relating to that matter. She will also talk about the public consultation undertaken by the NDA and the status of the sectoral plans.

I will begin by dealing with the relative income poverty question. Whatever way one looks at the issue of poverty, the position of people with disabilities is roughly twice as bad as that of the remainder of the population. Those in relative poverty, or what is now described as at risk of poverty, earn less than 60% of median income. Some poor people are missing out on basics. For example, they do not get a hot meal every day, do not have a decent pair of shoes and so forth. Consistent poverty describes those who are poor under both measures, that is income and consumption. ESRI research, based on the Living in Ireland survey, shows that people with disabilities are twice as likely to be poor, regardless of the measurement used.

Yesterday, the Central Statistics Office published the EU SILC report, a survey of income and living conditions. That survey does not contain a specific question on disability. It only deals with people whose labour force status is sick or disabled. In other words, it deals only with those who are in receipt of disability payments due to their inability to work. Disabled pensioners, children, housewives and those at work are not included. In essence, one third of people with disabilities are included in that statistical report. Given that caveat, the report illustrates that people with disabilities are two and a half to three times as likely to be consistently poor or in relative poverty. The report shows that the picture is fairly consistent. People with disabilities are much more likely to be poor than anybody else. That is related very strongly to the fact that most are not working, either because they are pensioners or because they are kept out of the world of work and their welfare incomes, on which they are dependent, have kept them in poverty.

Deputy Stanton asked about the cost of a disability payment and whether one would ever be introduced. The committee is probably familiar with the report of the working group on the review of the illness and disability payment scheme, undertaken by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. That working group recommended that a cost of disability payment be examined. A committee, the cost of disability working group, has been examining the feasibility of such a payment. It has examined some of the issues but it is a matter for the Minister of Social and Family Affairs to decide whether such a payment should be introduced. Some work has been done in the area and we are anxious to point out that the extra costs of disability make a difference to people's standard of living. The poverty figures quoted are even worse if one takes into account that disabled people have additional costs of living over and above those of the average person.

What is society losing when people with disabilities who could be working are not? It is instructive in that regard to look at the difference in employment rates for people with disabilities and different levels of education. We know that only 20% of disabled people aged between 25 and 34 who leave school after primary level, that is, with no junior or intermediate certificate, have a job. Approximately 50% of disabled people who have completed their leaving certificate have a job. If we move people up the educational ladder, we increase the proportion of people with disabilities who are working. I conducted a simple exercise and examined students with disabilities in one year. I looked at students with disabilities who were born in 1990. If those who wanted to leave school after the junior certificate could be persuaded to stay on to complete their leaving certificate, many more of them would have a job and the savings in terms of social welfare payments alone would be €2.6 million. The savings are potentially such that it would make sense for us to address investment in transport, benefit traps and other related issues. If more disabled people could be encouraged to work, there would be some social welfare savings, although that is not the main argument for doing so. That argument centres on quality of life, bringing people out of poverty and giving them a sense of financial independence. Nonetheless, the social welfare savings could fund some of the improvements needed.

I have not seen the survey on the cost of disability equipment to which Deputy Stanton referred, I have only read the newspaper reports on it. I would be grateful if he could forward a copy to us. There are some statistics available from the national physical and sensory disability database on those who can afford to access disability equipment. These show a considerable number of people who have not had a detailed assessment of their needs. A summary assessment suggests that they would need, but do not currently have, disability equipment. People with medical cards are legally entitled to assistance with aids and appliances, if the budget allows. However, those without medical cards do not have that legal entitlement. Some such people get their aids or appliances through a disability organisation, while others have to fund them from their own resources. That is an issue of concern.

Fewer than ten people availed of the FÁS package of disability supports and the job retention grant last year.

Deputy Stanton

Did Ms Fitzgerald say ten?

Ms Fitzgerald

Fewer than ten people. The package is almost not used at all, yet it is very generous, amounting to approximately €15,000 in terms of retraining, supports for employers for adaptations to the workplace, disability awareness training for other members of staff and so forth. The package is very generous but is not used.

Most people who acquire a disability do so in adult life and the majority are already working. Such people go into the social welfare system, which can identify them and their employers. Approximately 80% of those who return to work do so within six weeks. Therefore, if people pass the six-week point on disability benefit, their chances of returning to work are significantly reduced. We suggest that after six weeks or two months, the Department of Social and Family Affairs should write to employers and ask if they know about the FÁS package of supports. This would represent joined-up thinking and help those re-entering the workforce to hold onto a job they previously did. Some 30% of those who acquire a disability drop out of the workforce over a period of time. While some are too ill to work, others are in a position to do so with appropriate support. If a support mechanism was available whereby the Department channelled information to employers and individuals, it would encourage people to reintegrate.

Dr. Rosarie McCarthy

I thank Ms Fitzgerald, and Deputy Stanton for his questions. I will deal with the response of the National Disability Authority, NDA, to the outline sectoral plans of Departments, specifically the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I will also deal with the question on access to transport in rural areas for people with disabilities.

The NDA has just finalised its response to the six outline sectoral plans produced by Departments. The orange publication from the Department of Social and Family Affairs involved many months' work on our part but we have engaged in fruitful consultations with all Departments which have engaged with us and sought our advice on how to roll out the measures outlined. We also organised a series of regional information briefings with Departments at various locations involving workshops on the sectoral plans in order that people with disabilities and other interested parties could come and give their reaction, indicate what they wanted to see happen and what their key concerns were. It was a good exercise because key issues emerged repeatedly such as disability payments, access to buildings and transport.

I represented the NDA at a disability consultative forum with the Department of Social and Family Affairs which prompted much discussion with the Department and other interested parties, including statutory bodies and the disability sector. The first draft from the Department is an historic document. We have worked with the Department to set out what we would like to see happen in the short, medium and long term. We have developed a good relationship with it. It has been open with us and sought our advice on how it can achieve the vision outlined.

Accessible transport services for people with disabilities is a matter of great concern to us. The problems faced by people living in rural communities who cannot access any form of transport have been flagged by our transport specialist with the Department of Transport and taxi regulator. We have drawn on international research for our findings. For example, Finland has implemented a project funded with money from the European Commission to develop smart technology for people living in rural areas who cannot access transport. People with disabilities are given a smart card to access taxis. The system is highly computerised and takes into account people's varying abilities in the use of telephones, etc. It is a tangible goal which we have asked the Department to address in the second draft of its sectoral plan.

Ms Fitzgerald

The response to the sectoral plans from the NDA is with the printers and will be published.

Deputy Ring

I welcome Ms Fitzgerald back to the Oireachtas and wish her well in the next general election.

I will ask two questions. Are local authorities, health boards and Departments filling their quotas for the employment of disabled people?

I find that if partially disabled people make an effort to go back to work, the Department of Social and Family Affairs cancels benefits because they are deemed fit to work full time. As a result, people continue to avail of disability benefits, even though they would like to work on a part-time basis. I have figures to back this up because I have tabled questions on the subject. If people with a disability want to work, they should be encouraged to do so, even if only on a part-time basis. I agree with Ms Fitzgerald on the issue of a part-time payment.

It is accepted that funding is needed for people living on the islands because they incur extra expense. It is time the Government made such a payment, separate from social welfare payments, for people with disabilities who incur extra costs on everything. I was disappointed that there was no mention of them in the budget.

Ms Fitzgerald

I will deal with the issue of the employment quota, while Dr. McCarthy will deal with the question of partial disability.

In the budget the NDA sought an easing in the benefits trap because people in receipt of a disability allowance earning over €120 per week lose benefits on a euro for euro basis. As a result of the budget, from June 2006 such persons will lose benefits on a sliding scale, with a 50% withdrawal rate up to an income of €350. Those who will continue to be entitled to the allowance at a reduced level will also retain secondary benefits such as a medical card, as the cost of disability working group had sought. We should acknowledge, therefore, that progress has been made on the benefits trap.

The quota for people with disabilities in employment has been placed on a statutory footing in Part V of the Disability Act 2005. The most recent research suggests 2.7% or 2.8% of people with disabilities are on the books of public sector bodies. Therefore, the level is under the target of 3%. There is a provision in the Act under which the target may be varied but I hope the figure of 3% is regarded as the floor rather than the ceiling. If no specific target is set by a public body, 3% is the default target. In research undertaken by Candy Murphy et al. staff in the Civil Service were asked if they had a disability. Approximately 8% identified themselves as having a disability. This raises the question of how we count people with disabilities. If a person is counted officially by a Department without his or her knowledge or permission, the matter must be addressed. Under the Disability Act 2005 the NDA is given specific responsibilities for monitoring compliance with the 3% quota. We would like the sectoral plans of all six Departments to spell out what they are doing in the way of employing staff. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is one of the most progressive in that respect and has adopted a specific policy for working with its own disabled staff.

Deputy Ring

Has any case been taken against a State agency for not reaching its quota?

Ms Fitzgerald

That is not relevant because the Disability Act 2005 has only just placed the quota on a legal footing, to take effect from 31 December. The Act provides for the NDA monitoring committee to report on the progress a Department has made. If a Department or public body has not met the target over a two year period, the NDA can recommend to the Minister concerned that special measures be taken such as running special competitions or the provision of extra training for adaptation to work tasks.

Dr. McCarthy

The issue of partial incapacity will be flagged with the Department of Social and Family Affairs. In the big blue book the Department already recognises the need to consider the question of a partial disability payment because under the current social welfare system there is no provision for partial incapacity. A person is either fully fit to work or not at all. The logic is that not everyone can work full-time and that even those with a disability who are working full time find it is not always sustainable in the long term. Someone with multiple sclerosis working full time, paying a mortgage and supporting a family will be forced from the labour market completely if his or her situation deteriorates. A partial disability payment would help to address this by allowing someone to work a certain number of hours while offsetting the loss in income.

People with disabilities who have never worked but would like to do so and who need to be encouraged into the workforce form another category. People who have worked previously, dropped out of the workforce and wish to re-enter again would also form a cohort who could avail of a partial disability payment. However, there is no tailoring towards different types of capacity, although we are satisfied this is being thought about by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We will keep the issue on the agenda and look forward to discussing it further with the Department.

Deputy Cowley

I welcome Dr. McCarthy and Ms Fitzgerald and thank them for the clear presentation. I agree with their argument for a partial disability payment because the current system is black and white — a person is either working or not working and receiving the payment or not. Life is not like that; there are grey areas. An important part of the recovery process for people with a disability is rehabilitation. If they are forced to make a decision, a disservice is done to them. Co-ordination should be considered with Rehab or the HSE. The HSE might be in a position to help co-ordinate a system that would offer the opportunity to take part in a proper programme of rehabilitation without losing one's benefits.

The Indecon study of the extra costs of disability is interesting. It states disability adds up to one quarter to the cost of living. This should be worked on to make the begrudgers realise that people with a disability should be helped, not hindered. The Disability Act does not place any onus on the Government to provide funding when a disabled person is recognised as having needs. There is no obligation on it to address these needs financially.

Ms Fitzgerald

The Disability Act has been passed and is now Government policy. Section 14 requires the aggregate of the needs assessment and the amount of money involved to be published. This will send a powerful signal about people's needs in social welfare terms.

Until now we have only had data from the national intellectual disability database which has tracked unmet needs for residential and day services for people with intellectual disabilities. This information has driven the programme of investment for those services. We have partially developed the national physical and sensory disability database which has about 20,000 registered out of an estimated potential number who could register of 50,000. It tracks how far we must go as a society to meet their particular needs. We have no database for those with mental health difficulties and the extent of their needs. These will emerge as part of the needs assessment process provided for in Part 2 of the Disability Act. We have seen that when we count aggregate needs, society provides the money to fill the gaps. The needs assessment process is necessary and we must publish the aggregate needs. This should drive a process that will see those needs met with money.

The Indecon study of the cost of disability gives figures showing that it adds up to one quarter of the cost of living. I add the health warning that these figures are subject to a wide margin of statistical error. The extra cost varies according to the nature and intensity of the disability. International research suggests that for those with severe disabilities, the lowest cost would be €40 extra per week. There is a scale of costs for those with lower degrees of impairment. The cost can also be much higher than €40 per week. Some face considerable costs for items such as taxis or expensive equipment. Wheelchair users who drive a car that requires a demountable, lightweight wheelchair in order that they can move in and out of the car themselves must pay about €5,000 and the chairs only last about three years. Screen reader technology for a blind person costs about €2,000. There are particular expenses and some are entitled to assistance with some of them, while others are not. The cost of care assistants can also be high, depending on the nature of the disability and the level of care needed.

Dr. McCarthy

On partial employment and co-ordinated services between service providers, my colleague flagged an innovative project in the midlands. Its joined-up approach involved the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Health Service Executive and FÁS. It is positive and seeks to offer tailored advice and support to people with disabilities in the 16 to 25 year age group to encourage them into work. We have discussed the project at the disability consultative forum and the Department of Social and Family Affairs has carried out a good study. We look at the reasons behind making the jump into employment, be it part or full-time, and then at ways to address the questions this raises. One of the questions raised in the midlands was that of access to rural transport, where people wanted to work for a certain number of hours every week but could not get to work. Also, some were afraid of losing their benefits, while others wanted counselling and advice because they had been in receipt of disability allowance for a long time and did not have much confidence and needed support. We are looking at this issue at the disability consultative forum which is due to meet tomorrow in Longford. Many of those included the sample, around 30% which is quite low, who agreed to participate in the project came with their parents, many of whom decided this would not suit their children but the discussion is ongoing. We want to learn from the project and potentially roll it out on a nationwide basis. It represents a co-ordinated approach, something we mention in response to every Department when discussing sectoral plans.

Deputy Carty

I welcome Ms Eithne Fitzgerald, Dr. Rosarie McCarthy and the observers, one of whom is a good friend and neighbour of mine — Mary Mulryan from Claremorris. I assure the Chairman she does tremendous work in the county for Enable Ireland. Most of the questions I wanted to raise have been asked. I was very interested in the midlands pilot programme. I take it a full report has not yet come back.

Dr. McCarthy

A full report has not yet come back. I will double check tomorrow when we have the meeting in Longford and I will get back to the Deputy. We just got an interim report to throw up some issues at which we could look.

Chairman

Perhaps we might invite the National Disability Authority back in February or March when it has the full report to get an update on it.

Deputy Carty

I refer to the section on helping to remain in employment. With the Chairman's permission, we should ask the Minister to get his officials to notify the employer and the employee of this package after the six-week period. It is a shame only 10% have availed of the package when so much money is available.

Chairman

The policy is to try to help people. If, after the critical six-week period, people are not in a position to go back to work, they should be facilitated by way of the help available through FÁS and so on. We will write to the Minister if that is the wish of the committee.

Is there a lacuna in respect of carer's needs? The committee prepared a fairly substantial report on carers which perhaps the National Disability Authority has seen. It was not prepared with the aid of consultants such as Indecon or otherwise but with the aid of ordinary people. People, such as Deputy Carty's friend from Claremorris, gave us the hard facts. Our report is very factual.

One of the issues on which I followed up was a statutory requirement for needs assessment. That is applicable in Northern Ireland and in England. Would a statutory requirement for a needs assessment be an important boost for carers and carees? Matters will not advance in the way the National Disability Authority wishes unless we put such a requirement on a statutory footing.

As someone who lives in one of the more rural parts of the country, transport is a huge issue about which the National Disability Authority spoke. Has the authority had any input into updating the disabled passengers regulations, which are very antiquated? Very soon one will need to be missing one's head as one's arm will not do. These regulations are out of date. I implore the National Disability Authority to buck somebody up because perhaps it might have a greater input than we do in this area.

The mobility allowance is available but sometimes one would win the lotto quicker than get it for people. It would be easier to pick the six numbers on a Wednesday or a Saturday night. As a young person, I remember studying a book from America entitled The Bureaucratic Ethic which stuck in my mind. Officialdom is there to facilitate, not to impede. If a matter has two possible constructions, the one most favourable to the applicant should apply. However, that is not always the case.

I exhort the National Disability Authority to do all it can, particularly in practical areas including the schemes which may be non-statutory but which are, nonetheless, in place. They may give some hope to the people to whom the National Disability Authority has reached out.

The National Disability Authority's presentation was very useful but it was also very sobering. So much for all our talk about being inclusive — it is only talk. What the National Disability Authority said is that we have reached the point but we have certainly not reached the headland, which is the objective. I would be prepared to invite the National Disability Authority back in March to see if we have made any progress in relation to a number of those issues, particularly in regard to the midlands pilot project which is ongoing in my area.

A number of practical areas need to be addressed. Sometimes those practical proposals fall between two stools because people will say it is somebody else's responsibility — for example, it is the responsibility of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of Health and Children or the Health Service Executive. The more quangos created, the greater the opportunity for somebody to slip through the cracks. We talk about an integrated and co-ordinated approach but the more tiers of bureaucracy we create, the less co-ordinated and integrated things become.

That is my summary of the situation as somebody who has spent much time working for and with carers. Some €2 billion worth of work is being done by carers yet we are handing out approximately €180 million. That is some rate of return. It is a return of which we should be ashamed.

Ms Fitzgerald

As I know of the work this committee has done on carers, we did not add to it in our submission. We believed the committee had produced a very comprehensive report which, as the Chairman said, is very much rooted in what happens on the ground. Deputy Carty's suggestion on help remaining in work is constructive.

The Chairman talked about the disabled drivers' and passengers' regulations and the mobility allowance. There is also the free travel. The rules for the disabled drivers and passengers are, more or less, the basis for a disabled parking permit. It is very much based on physical issues rather on people's ability to get from A to B. It is defined very much in medical terms.

The Chairman talked about joined-up government. There is merit in looking at all those schemes together. We are talking about four Departments. The Revenue Commissioners run the disabled drivers and passengers scheme. The mobility allowance is provided by the Health Service Executive. Free travel, which people on disability allowance or invalidity pensions get, is a social welfare scheme. Responsibility for disabled parking now lies with the Department of Transport. If there was joined-up government, there might be consistency. As Dr. McCarthy said, smart card technology and the ability to use it to give people on a free travel pass something which would carry through to other modes of transport could unlock it for people.

The committee kindly talked about inviting us back in March. We would be delighted to attend but it may be of benefit to the committee to invite those directly involved in the midlands pilot scheme in FÁS and the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Chairman

If Ms Fitzgerald gives us a name, we will do that.

Senator Terry

I thank Ms Fitzgerald and Dr. McCarthy for attending. It is great to see them again. Of the 320,000 people with disabilities, has the census shown what percentage of that number is made up of women? Women who do not have their own social insurance record and who may be excluded from benefits because of means testing are particularly vulnerable. Does Ms Fitzgerald have anything to say on whether women in that category are even more marginalised than the other group? I refer in particular to women aged over 65 with a disability, especially if they do not receive payments in their own names. Has the National Disability Authority found that a woman in that situation is worse off than a similarly aged person who does not have a disability? They must be worse off.

When we were dealing with legislation in regard to disability and equality, it emerged that people with intellectual and physical disabilities were working in supermarkets and in other very low paid employment. My understanding is that they do not necessarily get the minimum wage. Can the National Disability Authority clarify the matter? Does it agree with such a practice? I certainly disagree with it. Anybody who is in employment should be getting at least the minimum wage. Has the National Disability Authority encountered anybody who is not getting the minimum wage? Does Ms Fitzgerald know the definitions being used by the various Departments when they are compiling their quotas and does she agree with the definitions used?

The figures we have been given in regard to poverty levels are shocking. It was revealed that 83% of disabled people at risk of poverty were living in homes where nobody had a job and 87% were living in homes primarily dependent on social welfare. Perhaps Ms Fitzgerald would elaborate on this. Is the fact that they are at greater risk of poverty related to their having dropped out of the education system? Those figures are really frightening. I thank Ms Fitzgerald once again for her excellent presentation.

Ms Fitzgerald

There are 84,000 women and 52,000 men over 65 with disabilities. In the packs we have supplied to committee members there is a copy of the report, How Far Towards Equality?, which is a compendium of all the facts and figures on disability we could find. The information sought by Senator Terry is available in that report.

In terms of women who do not have their own social insurance record, women who are married or living with a partner and who have a disability would generally not qualify for disability allowance on means grounds. Younger women who might be classified as housewives or other people who have been self-employed would not qualify for disability benefit or invalidity pension. They do not get that in their social insurance. In that situation they may need to get an independent income in their own right. Neither do they get the other benefits that tie in with that. For example, a full-time mother who has or who acquires a disability does not qualify for disability allowance if her husband is working. As she has not been working and does not have a social insurance record she does not quality for disability benefit or invalidity pension. Neither will she qualify for free travel, a medical card, free aids and appliances or mobility allowance. Similarly, she will not qualify for the welfare to work supports that are available to help people with disabilities going back to the workforce. Of the women aged over 65, some of them are on their husbands' old age pension, some are on widow's pension and some have old age contributory pensions or old age non-contributory pensions in their own right.

Regarding people with intellectual disabilities in low paid employment, the people one would meet in supermarkets would be getting the rate for the job. Many of them are working on a scheme called supported employment, where they would get the minimum wage of €7.65. Up to next June it will not pay anybody to work for more than 15 hours a week because if he or she exceeds the €120 limit they will not get any money for the extra hours they work. I hope the changes to the benefits trap will encourage those people to work for longer hours at the rate for the job in order that if they work for a full week, they can still keep their benefits and secondary benefits.

Some people with intellectual and other disabilities are working in sheltered workshops where the average rate of pay is about €13 per week. That is composed of a small number of people who are getting about €90 a week who would be doing more market-oriented work and then many other people who are getting a token payment of €5 per week. While those people are in training they get a training allowance of €42 per week but then go back to earning maybe €5 per week in sheltered occupational services. In Sustaining Progress and its predecessor, the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, commitments were made to look at that area. A report has been produced on the area of sheltered employment. There has been a long-standing commitment to examine the position of people who work in a sheltered environment in areas where there is open employment to ensure they would get the same conditions of work as other employees. That is something which is still on the table but has not yet been resolved.

The definitions used for counting the quota can vary from Department to Department. There is no standardisation. As the NDA takes on the functions under Part 5 of the Disability Act it will examine the issue of standardisation and of how to implement it in a way that is respectful of people. Disabled people should know they are on a register and be comfortable about disclosing a disability. This should not count as something against them in a job but would act as a trigger for a set of supports.

Chairman

We have had an extremely useful and valuable meeting. Some of the questions have been very searching and the answers have been most comprehensive. I thank Ms Eithne Fitzgerald, Dr. Rosarie McCarthy and their backup staff for the work they are doing and their contributions today. If they leave an address we will contact them. We want to bring people before the committee in March to find out more. We will again invite the National Disability Authority to come before the committee. When targets are set it should be easy to see if progress is made towards achieving them or not. We want to avoid setting targets and never examining the situation to see if progress has been made. We owe it to everybody involved in this area to ensure this happens.

While it is not directly within our remit, some of the payments and non-statutory schemes fall within the committee's remit. We will continue to pursue this matter. We will help the NDA with advocacy on the points it has raised. I thank the NDA for coming here today and avail of this opportunity to wish it continued success with its work and a happy Christmas and successful new year.

Ms Fitzgerald

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.29 p.m. and adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Thursday, 10 January 2006.