Vol. 465 No. 7
7 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Social Welfare the way in which he intends to define the term, substantially handicapped, contained in section 101B (1) (b) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, as inserted by the Social Welfare Act, 1996; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10564/96]
One of the qualifying conditions for entitlement to the new disability allowance, which will replace the existing disabled person's maintenance allowance from October next, is that the person is, by reason of a specified disability, substantially handicapped in undertaking employment of a kind which, if the person was not suffering from that disability, would be suited to his or her age, experience and qualifications.
A specified disability will be defined in regulations to mean an injury, disease, congenital deformity or physical or mental illness or defect, which has continued or may reasonably by expected to continue for a period of one year.
These provisions are the same as those currently applied in the case of disabled person's maintenance allowance.
Is the Minister of State aware that the large number of people with disabilities strongly object to the use of the phrase "substantially handicapped" which they consider to be a throwback to old thinking completely ignoring the movement to recognise and remove unnecessary handicaps faced by people with disabilities? Will he undertake to remove this description?
I wish to remind the Deputy that there was not any objection to such a description in relation to the disabled person's maintenance allowance previously.
Deputies will be aware that the difficulty was in qualifying assessment of means and degree of disability under two headings. Often the means test was a bigger bone of contention. The Deputy's point had not previously been brought to my attention and I will take it into account. However, the change in description sought by the Deputy can militate against some applicants as easily as it can help others.
The Minister of State should give an undertaking to remove the description because it is a matter of concern to people with disabilities. They strongly object to it and have communicated their objections to me.
When will the disability allowance section of the Social Welfare Act come into effect and what statutory instruments does the Minister intend to introduce?
It is hoped it will be implemented later in the year, possibly in October, I will communicate with the Deputy about the regulations as I do not have the information to hand.
Will the Minister fulfil his undertaking of a few months ago meet the relevant groups with regard to the statutory instruments by which the scheme will be run? I would like to see the consultation process promised by the Minister being implemented.
What have been the practical changes in the daily administration of the scheme since it was transferred from the Department of Health? What differences do they make for a person applying today for a disabled person's maintenance allowance or for a person receiving the allowance? What future changes are likely?
One of the main changes will be that the same regime will apply throughout the country, which is not the case at present as each of the eight health boards has its own scheme. The schemes are similar to some extent but there are variations. In one area a person might qualify for disabled person's maintenance allowance while he might not in another. Under the new regulations the same scheme will apply throughout the country and people will be equally entitled to benefit.
There is no difficulty in meeting concerned groups. The Minister and I have done so regularly to discuss difficulties which have arisen. When there are changes in a scheme it is understandable that the people directly affected might feel the necessity to discuss the changes with the Minister or me. There is no difficulty about that; it would be regarded as reasonable.
What difference has the change made to people currently receiving the allowance?
The difference will be that the same scheme will apply throughout the country. I expect the qualifications required under the new regulations will be at least as amenable as the previous ones. Previously there were differences between health boards and, although a scheme in one health board area might coincide to a large extent with a scheme operated in another area, the two schemes might not be identical. Another benefit is that central administration of a scheme will obviously be more efficient from the point of view of recipients and certainly more efficient and cost effective from the point of view of administration.
8 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Social Welfare the estimated cost of providing social welfare payments to the Packard Electric workers who will be made redundant in July 1996; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9437/96]
The potential annual cost of making unemployment payments to the persons affected by the closure of Packard Electric, those on lay-off since June 1995 and those about to be laid off is estimated at £2.9 million.
This is a typical example of the effect of the tax system. To secure take home pay of £160 per week a worker must earn £232. The gap is £72 which, for a single earner in that factory, is more than the worker will collect in social welfare.
This argument has been adequately debated in the House. While everybody will agree it is more cost effective to retain people in employment, it does not always occur. This is one such unfortunate circumstance. An estimated 820 employees are affected by the Packard Electric closure. Some 309 employees are on temporary lay-off and 511 are due to be laid off in July. The estimated average unemployment benefit at June 1996 rates will be £68. Assuming that all Packard Electric workers claim UB, the weekly cost is estimated as follows: existing lay-offs of 309 — £21,000 per week and £1.1 million per year; forthcoming lay-offs of 511 — £35,000 per week or £1.8 million per year; the total potential cost of 820 employees is £56,000 per week or £2.9 million per year.
What prompted the closure of this tremendous factory in a densely populated area was that it was too costly to produce its products.
That debate already took place in the House. There were other factors besides taxation levels involved in the closure and they are not the responsibility of my Department.
They are indirectly; the policies of the Minister contribute to the problem.
It would be wrong and misleading to suggest that taxation was the only problem. There were ongoing problems. I will outline to the House the sequence of events leading to the closure. They were previously outlined on 30 April by the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Rabbitte, in response to a Private Notice Question from Deputy O'Rourke and Deputy Harney.
On 23 June 1995, 400 workers were laid off at Packard Electric. This was in accordance with an agreement made between the company and the unions. The agreement provided that:
The company will advise the unions by 15 March 1996
(a) of business prospects for 1996. If prospects are such that a majority of those laid off will be reengaged over the first half of 1996, no redundancies will take effect until 1 June in accordance with previous practice.
(b) If business prospects, however, as of 15 March indicate that a majority will continue on lay-off over the first half of 1996, a phased redundancy programme will be on offer from 15 April for those on lay-off for whom a return to work date has not yet been determined.
(c) In the case of either (a) or (b) above the period of lay-off will be included in reckonable service for redundancy calculation and minimum notice calculation purposes.
On 14 March 1996, Mr. Ferreira wrote to the employees to reiterate: "we are all committed to increasing the competitiveness of the Tallaght plant".
On 2 April the company advised the Department of Enterprise and Employment that, because of difficulties in obtaining final details of its future business, it would not be in a position to inform the workforce of the proposed redundancy programme by 15 April 1996. In response to a request by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, the company met the unions on 12 April and indicated that it expected to be in a position at the end of May to make an announcement about the redundancy programme and its plans for the future of the plant.
On 19 April Mr. Battenberg, President of Delphi and Vice-President of GM, in response to a call from the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, arranged a meeting with the Minister and the Taoiseach to discuss the Packard plant. On 29 April Mr. Battenberg informed the Minister and the Taoiseach that the company had reluctantly concluded the plant did not have a viable future and it was intended to phase out the operation by the end of July next.
