Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 29 April 2015

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Social Protection

Medical Eligibility Criteria for Social Protection Payments: Discussion

1:00 pm

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives of the organisations and the Department for appearing before the joint committee. While this is not an issue for most people, it is an issue for anybody who makes applications for medical supports through the Department of Social Protection. Probably in common with all of the Deputies and Senators present, I have come across absolute frustration among people who often are in stressful situations and trying to fill in forms. Everyone accepts that there is a need for forms and that there is a bureaucracy that goes with making an application. As one issue I had originally hoped to deal with today concerned general practitioners, GPs, and consultants, it is a pity the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, is not present because this is one cause of delays. I note that one proposal - I believe it was put forward by the Disability Federation of Ireland - is that the Department consider ensuring GPs or consultants receive a payment for filling in the forms because I am aware that there is frustration on the part of some GPs and consultants who are asking why must they fill in forms repeatedly and what really is being sought. I seek a reaction to the proposal from the Department's point of view.

In addition, has the Department been in communication with the IMO or any other consultants' organisation to ascertain what is the problem? If a person applies for carer's allowance or disability allowance, he or she is required to produce a consultant's report. He or she attends the consultant and if he or she is lucky, he or she might be given an appointment after two months or might be on a list. The consultant will meet him or her and agree to fill in the form at some stage, but it could be seven to ten weeks before he or she receives the form. He or she is waiting for it in order to submit his or her forms. I have sometimes found that people have submitted the form initially just to be on the record. In some ways, they do not care that they will be refused because they know that by the time the appeal is heard, perhaps 20 weeks later, they might have the material they need from the consultant and that it will be backdated. Consequently, they submit an incomplete form in order to have it as the date of their application. What can be done to break the logjam? It is not just consultants, the same applies to some GPs. I am not having a go in this regard; I am merely stating there is a logjam that must be overcome.

The forms are substantial enough and can be onerous for somebody who is frustrated and stressed. A person is 19 pages into the carer's allowance application form before the headings of medicine, medical condition and disability are even reached. In the disability allowance section a person is 21 pages into it before his or her disability comes into it. As for the questions asked, one should not need to ask half of them in this day and age. The Department has all of the details, for example, of how many kids a person has because it is paying child benefit. I refer to a way of cutting down on this. Moreover, when a person applies for carer's allowance, he or she may be entitled to free fuel allowance or free travel. Perhaps I am wrong, but in many respects, he or she must then fill in virtually exactly the same form again.

I will ask one or two questions and then come back in. Will the departmental officials explain why more than half of those who appeal are successful? Members understand the substantial increase in the number of those applying which obviously has put a weight on the Department. However, having found a rate of 55%, has an analysis been made? Is it just a lack of understanding of the forms? I note that two cases from the Ombudsman last year or the previous year involved forms not being sent between the Department and the Social Welfare Appeals Office, that is, the full file. In this day and age, I would have presumed that the Department scanned everything. What is the problem in that regard? Is it simply a matter of computer systems not talking to one another?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.