Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

I thank Senators for their remarks. The disablement benefit applicants who satisfy the occupational injury criteria are referred for an in-person assessment by a medical assessor of the Department. That assessor would determine the percentage loss of faculty and would be governed in the first place by the physical level of disablement suffered by a person. As an occupational benefit, there would also be a relationship with the capacity to carry on with an occupation. I stress that this is a medical assessment and it is not done by administrative officials.

The rate of benefit payable depends on the percentage loss of faculty assessed. Disablement benefit may be paid, as Senator Moloney, who is clearly an expert, would know, as a once-off gratuity or lump sum or in the form of a pension. Those payments may be made regardless of the fact that the person could return to work and take up the full-time employment which the person had before the accident. It does not require that a person would in any way stop working, and people frequently go back to work. I understand this may apply to many people in public service employment who may be prone to receive an injury in the course of their occupation. Certain public service obligations would carry that risk.

We are indicating that with 1% to 9% disablement that there is an option of a gratuity and with 10% to 14% there is an option of gratuity or pension. With the change, if the level of disablement is between 15% and 19%, the option from next year will be a gratuity or pension but from 1% to 14%, there will not be any payment. The saving to the Department next year will be approximately €2.5 million and just under €5 million in a full year. For anybody above 20% disablement, the existing process allows for a pension and that will continue next year.

Other countries have been mentioned. In the UK the disablement level is 14%, so essentially we are moving to the UK norm. In Denmark the level is 15%; in Germany it is 20%; in Lithuania and Portugal it is 30%; in the Czech Republic and Spain it is 33%; in the Netherlands it is 35%; and in Austria, Bulgaria, Greece and Hungary it is 50%. The EU norm tends to be somewhat higher than ours as with people who receive this kind of injury in association with their work or going to and from work, the expectation is that when they recover they will return in full to the previous occupation. The disablement benefit, as Senator Byrne stated, is to compensate for an injury suffered. It is not like disability, where a person would be prevented in some way from working. People may be in a public service occupation where there is full sick pay in the context of injury, and on returning to work they would generally resume their occupation in full. It would not affect ultimate retirement benefits. One could say that we are moving to a European norm.

Senator Mooney spoke about the history of social protection in Ireland, with people in various Governments trying to enable people to get more payments from social welfare. There are some areas in which payments are much larger than the equivalent in other European countries with which we would identify and that have very strong social welfare systems. As a Minister I am anxious to get cross-party support on the idea that whatever the level of difficulty and deep the recession, as we move through these very painful cuts we should retain the notion of a welfare state for people. In the context of existing pressures we must also look at maintaining the welfare state in a way that is more cost-effective and targeted. I put it to Senators that this change is in that category.