Marie Moloney (Labour)

I thank the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, for coming to the House to take this matter. As she will be aware, parents who have children with special needs are extremely anxious with regard to the reviews taking place in respect of domiciliary care allowance. The current state of the nation has driven fear into the hearts of those who are dependent on the income they obtain in the form of this allowance, which assists them in caring for their children. In 2011, 402 cases were reviewed and the allowance was cut in respect of 198 of these. The Minister will appreciate that when parents receive a letter relating to the review, it is a cause of some concern.

Applications for domiciliary care allowance are reviewed without the medical assessors involved meeting the relevant children or their parents. An assessment is based on the medical evidence submitted by a doctor and it does not take account of the additional care and attention parents must give their children on a daily basis. Will the Minister indicate why medical reviews are required in respect of children with lifelong illnesses - such as Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy, to name but a few - particularly as these conditions are not going to improve? In the carer's allowance section, files are marked "Not for medical review". Perhaps this could also apply in respect of children who have lifelong illnesses and diseases and who are in receipt of domiciliary care allowance.

It is very disappointing to see so many children with autism being reassessed and being considered so improved that their needs are no greater than those of any other child. I have met many parents with children who are autistic and my heart goes out to them. I have great admiration for those parents because while their children may look perfect, their behaviour is not. These parents have difficulty even finding people to mind their children because many babysitters do not want to take on the problem. It is a vicious circle for the parents to whom I refer, who are obliged to fight the system at every turn in order to ensure the best care and education for their children. They are again fighting the State and trying to get it to accept that their children require additional special care.

I am sure the parents of children with autism would be absolutely delighted if their children's needs were not any greater than those of other children of the same age. They would accept such a development any day in place of the domiciliary care allowance. Unfortunately, that is not how things are for them. Any child with autism, regardless of how mild it might be, needs extra care. I have dealt with people whose appeals have been turned down and I am aware that if substantial medical evidence had been submitted at the outset, they would not have been obliged to undergo the appeals process.

I ask the Minister to extend the review period for the domiciliary care allowance in order to give parents time to obtain proper medical evidence from consultants, psychologists, therapists or others who are responsible for continually monitoring their children's progress. If this happened, medical assessors might not be so quick to discontinue people's allowances. Each day the newspapers carry stories about parents who are suffering because their children, as a result of autism and other illnesses, are causing problems. These people are being informed that their children do not require extra care.

I request that the Minister exercise her good nature and review the position with regard to the domiciliary care allowance. At the very least she might consider extending the period in which medical evidence can be submitted.