Vol. 499 No. 3
71 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on whether households dependent on disability payments are generally low income families; and the reason child dependant allowance for their children in full-time education is withdrawn at age 18 years, when it is payable for children of other recipients up to age 22 years. [2707/99]
The Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities has highlighted the fact that there is inadequate information available on people with disabilities, particularly in relation to their numbers, characteristics and needs. However, the limited research which is available would suggest that, even before their special needs are taken into account, people with disabilities face a high risk of poverty.
In this regard, the Government is committed in its action programme to radical change to ensure that the needs and aspirations of people with disabilities, their families, carers and advocates are comprehensively addressed. Specifically, the Government is committed to overhauling the means by which the State supports the incomes of people with disabilities, to implementing the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities and to progressively relaxing the qualifying criteria for the carer's allowance.
The Government has implemented a number of recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities in relation to income support, namely that the rates of payment recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare – CSW – be achieved as a matter of priority and a package of improved benefits be introduced for carers. As a result of the improvements which have been provided for by this Government, all payments to people with disabilities are now above the rates recommended by the CSW. Following implementation of the recently announced budget increases, payments for people with disabilities will range between 102 and 124 per cent of the CSW's target rate. In addition, the 1999 budget provides for the introduction of a major package of improvements for carers and people with disabilities costing over £18.6 million in a full year. They are improvements.
Various studies have highlighted the fact that low employment rates lead to higher levels of poverty and social exclusion among people with disabilities. In this regard, significant progress has been made by my Department in recent years in relation to the employment and educational supports which are provided for people with disabilities. For instance, the back-to-work allowance and back to education programme, under my Department, have been extended to people with disabilities.
Is the Minister dealing with Question No. 71?
In addition, the amount a person can earn from rehabilitative employment without affecting their entitlement to disability allowance, blind person's pension and supplementary welfare allowance has been increased from £36.30 to £50 per week.
While many improvements have been introduced in recent years for people with disabilities, it is nevertheless recognised that much more needs to be done. In this regard, the potential for further enhancements to the system will continue to be examined in the light of the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities and having regard to the available resources.
With regard to the duration of payment of child dependant allowances, my Department operates a number of payment schemes specifically for people with disabilities, namely the contributory invalidity pension, the means-tested disability allowance and blind person's pension schemes. Increases in respect of child dependants continue to be paid up to the age of 22 years, or up to the end of the academic year after the 22nd birthday, where the child continues in full-time education in the case of all these disability payments. This provision does not apply in relation to short-term disability benefit. However, a person receiving a disability benefit payment for more than 12 months can, as the Deputy knows, qualify for invalidity pension which is paid at a higher rate and, obviously, attracts extra benefits.
For three quarters of his reply, I thought the Minister was talking about another question altogether. It is typical of the filibustering attitude of the Minister in not replying to the question he was asked. I simply asked him his views on whether disability payments are generally made to low income families. I gather the answer is yes, but he might not even have confirmed that.
I am particularly interested in why the children of those on disability assistance or benefit do not get the opportunity of going on to higher education because they do not get the child dependant allowance after the age of 18. Does the Minister not accept that system is wrong and that we should be encouraging the children of those on disability payments to go on to higher education? Will the Minister confirm he accepts this is wrong and that it should be changed?
Disability benefit has always been known colloquially as "the sick". The disability benefit scheme is geared towards those people who are sick, not people on invalidity pension, for instance.
It is not long term.
Yes, it is a short-term payment. For many years it has been the case in the social welfare system that people on long-term payments receive more favourable treatment than those on short-term ones because they are at far more risk of poverty.
Will the Minister accept that generally people on disability assistance or benefit can be in receipt of that payment for many years? It is the exception rather than the rule that they are not changed over to the long-term payment until many years have passed. Does the Minister accept that these are low income families and that it is wrong not to allow them the child dependant allowance to encourage their children to continue on to higher education? Will the Minister accept that if he continues with this attitude against people who are in receipt of disability payments, he will become know as the Glenn Hoddle of the Dáil? His lack of care for people in that position will fully justify him being christened in that fashion. I beg the Minister to review his attitude and to change his approach to ensure that this simple change is made to encourage children of those in receipt of disability payments to go on to third level education.
The Deputy knows exactly what is at issue here, yet he is endeavouring to misrepresent the situation. Disability benefit is short-term and I cannot put it any clearer than that. Because of that, people in receipt of short-term benefits do not avail of some of the extra benefits available to those on longer-term payments. That has always been the case it was the case when the Deputy's Government was in power on this side of the House. I do not see any rationale for changing that because with scarce and finite resources one must target those most at risk from poverty. Those on long-term payments are more at risk of poverty than those on short-term payments.
Does the Minister agree that if someone is on unemployment assistance or benefit, they can move on to a long-term payment after 15 months? That is not the situation with disability payments. The Minister and I have been Members of the House for about the same length of time. We often meet people in our clinics who are on disability payments and cannot get onto invalidity payment. It is very difficult to move from disability to invalidity. The Minister is aware of that. There is a very strict medical examination, yet many people are on disability benefit for quite some time. Would it not be only fair that they can receive allowances for their children in higher education?
I fully understand what the Minister said concerning short-term and long-term payments. Perhaps there is a case to be made for disability benefit to become a long-term payment, or to have some system whereby children could receive special treatment. In reality, in most cases it is not a short-term payment.
In this issue we are talking about people with disabilities I do not want to look at this purely as a matter of money. A huge number of people are on disability benefit. Their disability or sickness is of varying degrees, from the least disabled to people who have severe medical difficulties.
The Deputy is right in that after 12 months people are entitled to apply for invalidity pension. He is also right in that it is difficult to get onto invalidity pension. We all know that. One of the reasons many people endeavour to get onto invalidity pension is that they know that extra benefits are available. However, we have to look at this in a broader context. The Government is examining the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, which contain some substantial proposals on extra payment for people with disabilities. The issue of some of the payments that are really designed as a sickness allowance, which we are committed to bring forward, is a broader issue. It is something we will be looking at in the current year. We propose to examine the issue of a sickness allowance which will assist in distinguishing people who are sick from those who have a disability and should be on invalidity.
The Minister will look at this issue.
Yes, obviously.
Will the Minister accept that if we are to have a genuine anti-poverty strategy we must look at the statistics? It is quite clear that the percentage of children of those in receipt of disability benefit or assistance who go onto third level education is very low. We should be doing everything we can to change that trend. Will the Minister accept that the fact the child dependant allowance is not available to parents of such children is a contributory factor? That alone should be a major reason we should try to change the system. Taking all those circumstances into account, will the Minister give a guarantee to the House to look favourably on such a change?
From time to time anomalies arise in the system and, obviously, we are willing to look at the situation. There is a broader picture in relation to people referred to by the Deputy. They would be entitled to a maintenance grant under the higher education grant scheme. Even in relation to the back to education allowance—
It is inadequate.
There will be some leniency for people in that regard. We will consider these issues which on the surface appear to be difficult. However, if one scratches the surface of social welfare matters and a change is made in one area, it causes difficulties elsewhere. Nevertheless, I undertake to keep the matter under review.
