Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The announcement last week that the Green Paper on disability payments is being scrapped was received with relief by many people with disabilities. However, it does, of course, raise further questions as to what happens next. In several respects, the consultation on the Green Paper was badly handled. My party's disability spokesperson, Deputy Tully, and I have met well over a dozen groups representing disabled persons, who raised issues regarding the consultation, technology and so on. A big concern and frustration was that while it was a consultation, the initial proposal was not arrived at by co-design. There was a feeling that the priorities of people with disabilities were not built into the process from the outset. The impression was that the Department brought forward a proposal and then sought to consult on that basis. This was one of the big concerns raised with us. I notice some engagement between the Minister and her officials. There may be issues of which I am not aware but these certainly are the issues and concerns that were brought to us.

The proposal, such as it was, had a number of substantial flaws. In terms of the philosophy underpinning it, the biggest flaw was that it conflated the cost of disability with the severity of disability. As we know from the Indecon report and lots of other sources, the cost of disability is based on a range of variables, not just the severity of disability. It can vary a lot depending on whether people live alone, live in a rural or urban setting and all kinds of other factors. There has been a demand for a cost-of-disability payment. In our alternative budget, beyond the general increase in working age payments, we proposed an additional payment increase of up to €20 for people on disability-related payments. More than that is needed. We must examine introducing a specific cost-of-disability payment.

The fact is that people with disabilities in Ireland are far more likely to be at risk of poverty and far less likely to be in employment than not only the general population but also their peers across Europe. We have one of the lowest rates of employment.

The proposals seemed to focus very much on using social welfare as labour activation rather than examining some of the significant obstacles that prevent disabled people from accessing the workplace. I have raised in the past the fact that the wage subsidy scheme has not kept pace with increases to the minimum wage. The differential advantage employers would have in employing people with disabilities has been reduced. Cultural issues also need to be tackled. These relate to the attitudes of employers, who do not always appreciate how people with disabilities can contribute to the workplaces for which those employers are responsible. There are also issues with Intreo. Considerable work needs to be done on the latter. The Green Paper seemed to develop a strategy with three tiers. The Department told us there were no sanctions, but the strategy seemed to be to get Intreo staff to sit on the people in question until they found something, even if the work and training were unsuitable. That is what people heard. I realise the Minister kept on saying there was no sanction but the architecture was being created. I accept the sincerity of the Minister on this and do not believe she was setting out to create a system that would force people with disabilities to go into unsuitable employment. I accept her bona fides but the architecture was being created such that a subsequent Minister could go in the direction I have outlined. If there is a system of three tiers, with one not being reviewed and the implication of the third being that disabled people are capable of working, it is an issue. Many of them are capable of working but they should be helped to work in the way they want rather than forced into unsuitable employment. With a system like the one I have described, the implication is that there is a sanction and that people will eventually be forced into unsuitable work. That might not have been the intention but that is how it was heard.

The question is one of what happens next. There are still issues with and inconsistencies in the disability payments system. You do not get stamps on the disability payment but you do on invalidity payments. The cost-of-disability payment needs to be to the fore in what happens next.

See this speech in context