Pre Budget Submission 2000

Carers

We consider that it is necessary to introduce a system which recognises the contribution of carers and which is not contingent on low income, on PRSI contributions or on high income. This system should be introduced in tandem with the enhanced Child Benefit proposals.

Employed family members

The exclusion of certain employed family members from PRSI contributions, from protective employee legislation and from the National Minimum Wage should be ended.

Students summer job scheme

The role and contribution of the scheme should now be reviewed. It may be appropriate to reallocate some of the resources available under the scheme to providing other supports for voluntary and community organisations. These could then be used to employ staff or for other purposes needed by these organisations.

Retirement pension

The retirement condition attached to this pension should be abolished in order to facilitate older people to stay in or return to the workforce.

Fuel Allowance

The fuel allowance should be increased and be payable as a lump sum.

Invalidity pension

Recipients of Disability Benefit should be informed when they become eligible for Invalidity Pension and the options should be clearly explained.

Child Dependant Allowances

Child Dependant Allowances (CDAs) should be payable with short term payments in respect of children aged over 19 on the same basis as for long term payments.

Means tests

The means test for Unemployment Assistance should be simplified - in particular for couples with children.

Secondary Benefits

It is recommended that the limit for retention of secondary benefits should reflect the number of dependent children in the family, similar to FIS.

Sickness Allowance

The sickness allowance scheme should be implemented.

Class S contributions and benefits

Formerly employed people who took up self-employment and availed of the back to work benefits should be eligible for FIS.

One Parent Family Payment

Where parents have equal custody of children, one parent should be eligible for the One-Parent Family Payment and/or Family Income Supplement

Income in residential care

Disability Allowance should be extended as a matter of urgency to former DPMA recipients who lost their payment when they went into residential care.

Disabled Person's Housing Grant

We recommend a number of improvements to this scheme.

Part 2: Co-ordination Issues

It is necessary to ensure that there is co-ordination between the eligibility requirements for different schemes, rules etc. In particular, there needs to be a clear relationship between the level of the national minimum wage, social welfare payments generally and specifically the income limits for Family Income Supplement and the income limits for medical cards.

The Submission also draws attention to the problems which exist in the enforcement of employment legislation.

Part 3: Service Delivery Issues

Delays in processing claims

Reports from CICs suggest that the time taken to process social welfare claims is increasing. We recommend that the delays be reduced.

Appeals

Similarly, the delays in appeals need to be tackled.

Absence of formal appeals system

There are a number of areas of service provision where no formal appeals systems is available - for example, for the non-statutory DSCFA schemes and for medical cards. The introduction of such systems is long overdue.

Complaints Procedures

As well as formal appeals procedures, there is a need for complaints procedures to be available to citizens who feel they have been treated unfairly or discourteously. Initially, complaints procedures should be established in the DSCFA and in the health boards. There should be some external element to these procedures and their existence should be widely advertised.

Inadequate funding of schemes

A number of schemes - particularly in the housing area - are inadequately funded. These schemes should be available as of right and adequate funding should be provided.

Codes of practice governing relationships between public servants and clients

All public service providers who deal directly with clients should have a code of practice which governs their dealings with the client.

Funding for Core Services

The gaps in service provision that that are arising as a result of the phasing out of CE need to be addressed and other means of funding such services need to be identified. This is particularly relevant in the case of personal assistants to people with disabilities, community transport schemes and day care services.

This is the end of the Executive Summary

---

Pre-Budget Submission 2000

Part 1: The income maintenance system

Comhairle considers that this is an appropriate time to start to tackle some of the fundamental structural problems within the income maintenance system. These should be tackled over a three to five year timescale. In particular, we consider that the DSCFA should make decisions on future policy in respect of individualisation of benefits, use the opportunity of low unemployment to make reforms in unemployment payments, the reform of the qualified adult allowance and child dependent allowances and their replacement with more appropriate payments for carers and enhanced Child Benefit.

It is necessary to recognise that some schemes have outlived their usefulness and should be totally revamped or abolished.

Level of social welfare payments

Comhairle welcomes the proposed working group on the benchmarking of social welfare payments (as agreed in the PPF). We consider that its work should be carried out as quickly as possible. We are concerned that social welfare recipients are being adversely affected by inflation and are in danger of becoming further marginalised as incomes from other sources, including pay, are increasing

Cost of Disability

We also welcome the establishment of a working group on a Cost of Disability payment. A Cost of Disability payment was first proposed by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Again, we consider that the work of this group should be expedited as this is a fundamental issue for people with disabilities. We now have the significant legislation dealing with equality for people with disabilities and the gaps in legislation may be addressed by the proposed Disabilities Bill. Comhairle has made a detailed submission on the legislative issues to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, while legislation is essential, people with disabilities are hampered in the realisation of their rights by the direct costs of disability. These costs include, among others, transport, aids and appliances, personal assistance.

Individualisation of social welfare benefits

It is now government policy to individualise the tax system and this policy has the full support of the social partners. It is now appropriate to make decisions on the issue of individualisation of the social welfare system. The issues involved, the "winners" and "losers", the costs involved have all been comprehensively addressed in the Report of the Working Group Examining the Treatment of Married, Cohabiting and One-Parent Families under the Tax and Social Welfare Codes, 1999.

Many of the problems which have been experienced over the years in relation to work incentives have been the result of different treatment of household units by the tax and the welfare systems. Over the past 5 to 10 years, major efforts have been made to align the two systems so that these problems can be removed. Integration of the two systems was for many years the preferred policy option for many commentators and policy makers. The greater alignment that has occurred, while short of integration, has undoubtedly reduced the problems. If individualisation of the tax system is to proceed without corresponding changes in the social welfare system the two systems will be at variance and the benefits gained form the difficult alignment process which has occurred will be lost.

We recognise that the problems involved are far greater in the individualisation of the social welfare system than the tax system. If the government decides to proceed with individualisation of the social welfare system then a plan should be put in place for implementation over a five to ten year period. If it is decided not to proceed in that direction, then a plan needs to be put in place to reduce or remove the disincentive to work which is inherent in the qualified adult allowance arrangements, to reduce or remove the disincentive for parents to marry or cohabit which is inherent in the One Parent Family Payment and UA arrangements.

Unemployment and Back to Work Payments

We consider that the present low levels of unemployment provide an opportunity for the reform of unemployment payments. The issue of individualisation is particularly relevant in the case of these payments. If it is decided to proceed with individualisation, we consider that this process should start with unemployment payments.

The back to work and back to education allowance should be formally incorporated into the unemployment payment system. This would mean that all unemployment payments would be focused on back to work and education rather than simply compensation for unemployment. At present, these allowances are not provided for in legislation and they are not subject to the formal appeals system. Their full incorporation into an unemployment payments package would address these issues.

Lower rates of Unemployment Benefit (UB)

The lower rates of Unemployment Benefit (and Disability Benefit) should be abolished as they no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended and they cause recipients to have recourse to the SWA system. This is an unnecessary duplication of administration and is an unfair burden on recipients.

Asylum seekers

Asylum seekers who are entitled to work and refugees who have just achieved that status cannot avail of Back to Work (BTW) benefits because they have not been receiving the relevant payment as Supplementary Welfare Allowance (SWA) is not a qualifying payment for BTW benefits. If they go straight into work they are not entitled to secondary benefits so there is a severe disincentive to work. In fact there is an incentive to remain unemployed for a year until they qualify for the BTW benefits. This should be changed immediately.

Other recipients of SWA are not eligible for BTW benefits because they are not considered to be available for work. The integration of BTW and unemployment payments would facilitate any member of this group who wanted to and was available for work.

Students summer job scheme

The Students Summer Job Scheme was introduced to compensate students for the loss of entitlement to Unemployment Assistance (UA). It has proved beneficial for a substantial number of voluntary and community organisations and no doubt some students have gained from the experience. However, the changed job market context means that it is no longer relevant to students in the same manner as was the case when it was first introduced. The role and contribution of the scheme should now be reviewed. It may be appropriate to reallocate some of the resources available under the scheme to providing other supports for voluntary and community organisations. These could then be used to employ staff or for other purposes needed by the organisation.

Pre-retirement allowance

This allowance was introduced at a time of high unemployment. It enabled people who had no realistic chance of employment to get their payment without the necessity of establishing availability for work and related conditions. Economic circumstances have changed considerably and there is a case to be made for encouraging some of the recipients of this allowance back to work.

Such encouragement should be provided without total withdrawal of benefit. It would be unreasonable to ask people aged over 55 to forego the certainty of PRETA for the uncertainty of employment. There are a number of ways in which recipients could be encouraged back to work without loss of benefit. They could, for example, be encouraged back to work by significant disregards for employment income, by ensuring the retention of at least some of the allowance, by ensuring immediate return to PRETA if the work ended and by the retention of secondary benefits. The disregards for employment income could be more generous in the case of community type employment, for example, as a home help or a school or community centre caretaker. This would have the extra advantage of providing a pool of labour for services which are finding recruitment particularly difficult.

Carers

Comhairle considers that it is necessary to introduce a system which recognises the contribution of carers and which is not contingent on low income, on PRSI contributions or on high income. This system should be introduced in tandem with the enhanced Child benefit proposals.

The majority of carers of older people and people with disabilities do not receive any formal recognition from the state for their efforts. The Carer's Allowance is available to low income carers, the new Carer's Benefit will be available to people who give up work, after October 2000, in order to provide short term care. The Home Carer's Tax Credit is not a benefit for the carer, it is only available to the carer's spouse and not at all to single carers or indeed to married carers where the spouse is being cared for. It can only be availed of by married couples with an income of over £28,000 and it equates caring for a healthy 18 year old with caring for a person with a disability. There are other tax free allowances or tax credits available for certain carers but they are generally very small and lack internal consistency or coherence. For example, the Dependant relative tax credit is very small (currently worth £48 a year), it is really only worthwhile as a passport to qualifying for tax relief on nursing home fees. This discriminates against people who support relatives in the taxpayer's or the relative's home and goes contrary to the general principle that community care should be encouraged. The tax relief for an incapacitated child should be incorporated in the enhanced Child benefit which we propose. The allowance for employing a carer for an incapacitated person is relatively generous but is only availed of by 500 people.

We do not consider that tax free allowances or tax credits are an appropriate means of providing income support for carers (or any other social welfare group). This point has been made by the Commission on Taxation and the Commission on Social Welfare.

Employed family members

At present, certain spouses and children are not required to pay PRSI contributions if they share the family home and are engaged in the family business. It is not entirely clear what the original logic was for the exclusion from PRSI but it seems to be partly based on the assumption that the family members concerned were benefiting from the business or would benefit in the future and partly on a philosophical view that the state should not interfere in family businesses. As a result of the PRSI exclusion, the people concerned are excluded from a range of employee protection legislation including redundancy payments and the National Minimum Wage.

We consider that this exclusion is contrary to the best interests of the family members concerned and does nothing to promote the overall welfare of families. It should be removed and the family members concerned should then acquire coverage for the usual range of social welfare benefits and also for the full range of employee protection measures.

Retirement pension

The retirement condition attached to this pension should be abolished in order to facilitate older people who wish to stay in or return to the workforce.

Fuel Allowance

The amount of the Fuel Allowance has not been increased since 1985. CIC users, particularly older people, regularly draw attention to the inadequacy of the fuel allowance. The issue of a fuel cost subsidy should be looked at in the context of the adequacy of social welfare payments generally. In the meantime, the fuel allowance should be increased to reflect recent significant increases in fuel costs. Consideration should also be given to paying it as a lump sum in order to enable people to buy in bulk.

Invalidity pension

In general, people who become eligible for benefits should be informed if this is possible. In particular, and it is always possible in these cases, recipients of Disability Benefit should be automatically informed of the possibility that they may qualify for Invalidity Pension. We recognise that not all DB recipients do qualify for Invalidity Pension but they should be informed about it and given the option to claim it. At present, application forms for Invalidity Pension are only available by applying directly to the Department. There is no good reason why these forms should not be widely available in the same way as other social welfare forms.

The DSCFA have written to Invalidity Pension recipients encouraging them to change from payment in the Post Office to payment through a bank. The letter did not explain that PO payment is a week in advance and bank payment is a week in arrears so there is a week's gap when there is no payment. This has happened to IP and old age pensioners who have switched payment methods and find they have no money for a week. There are two administrative issues here which need to be addressed:

The department should give all relevant information to customers when asking them to change payment methods.

There should be no difference in timing between the two payment methods.

Child Dependant Allowances

Child Dependant Allowances (CDAs) are not paid to recipients of short term social welfare payments in respect of dependent children aged nineteen years or more who are in full time education. This constitutes discrimination against the families in this situation and is a disincentive to such young people staying on at school. This is one of the issues which arises very frequently in CICs. This should be remedied.

Simplification of means tests

The means test for Unemployment Assistance (UA) is extremely complex. It is unlikely that many people affected by it are fully aware of the amounts they may earn and still qualify for some UA. This means test should be simplified - in particular for couples with children.

Parental incomeshould not be assessed for people aged 25 and over. Because of housing shortages, it is particularly important at present to ensure that single people remain in the family home. This proposal is a long-standing one which is supported by the Commission on Social Welfare and the National Economic and Social Forum.

Means testing in all areas should apply to net income pending the removal of all means tested payments beneficiaries from the tax net. The application of the net income test to Family Income Supplement is a welcome step in the right direction. The Medical card means test applies to income which is net of PRSI. Other means tests apply to gross income. The ultimate objective must be the removal of means tested payment beneficiaries from the tax and PRSI nets altogether. Initially, the medical card means test should be applied to income net of PRSI and tax. The means test for the Fuel Scheme should also be based on net income

The means testing of capital in the case of UA and SWA should be the same as for other social welfare payments.

Maintenance payments

Some inconsistencies have emerged in the manner in which maintenance from separated spouses is treated in assessing eligibility for means tested payments. For example, all maintenance is assessed as income in applications for the One Parent Family Payment whereas maintenance payments in respect of children which are the subject of a court order are excluded from the FIS means test. The treatment of maintenance in regard to other means tested payments is not clear. Problems have also arisen in the case of separated spouses who do not receive regular payments from a separated spouse - such people can find it difficult to produce the standard form of proof of income. The treatment of income from maintenance in means tests needs to be reviewed and clarified.

Back to school clothing and footwear scheme

The income limits for the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance are very strict. If income is only £1 over the income limit or £250 (whichever is applicable) there is no payment at all. There is a strong argument for a tapered or half rate payment for low income families or those who are taking up work.

Secondary Benefits

Secondary benefits continue to be a major issue for people returning to work. The overall limit of £250 weekly income for the retention of these benefits when on employment schemes has not been increased since it was introduced. Last year, FIS and BTWA income was excluded from the assessment but this had no effect for those on CE schemes. As the CE rates increase some lone parents exceed the limit and lose secondary benefits. In one case a lone parent with 3 children had an increase of £3 a week when CE rates increased or £150 a year and lost the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance for 3 children worth £189.

It is recommended that the limit for retention of secondary benefits should reflect the number of dependent children in the family, similar to FIS.

Sickness Allowance

The sickness allowance scheme should be implemented. The gap in the system was clearly recognised when the legislation was being enacted.

Over 40% of queries from information providers to Comhairle concern income supports for those who are ill or have a disability. The failure to implement legislation in relation to the introduction of a new assistance sickness payment for those who don't qualify for DB or are not permanently incapacitated leaves those affected relying on weekly claiming of SWA which is not an appropriate income support mechanism in these circumstances. The existence of this Sickness Allowance payment on statute is flagged by the DSCFA in its ‘Social Inclusion Strategy' document as a necessary component if there is to be a comprehensive system of income supports for people who are ill.

Class S contributions and benefits

Government in general and the DSCFA in particular have encouraged self-employment and provided specific programmes (such as the BTWA) for people coming from unemployment. It is likely that the level of income generated by these enterprises is relatively low. People in this situation have quite a precarious living and lose many of the important employee welfare benefits.

After about two years of disengagement from Class A PRSI, entitlement to DB (and to Treatment Benefit) ceases. SWA is the only option.

People in this situation should be eligible for FIS. We consider that FIS should be extended to self-employed people, initially to people who availed of the back to work scheme.

One Parent Family Payment.

There is an anomaly in the position adopted by the DSCFA towards separated couples where the parents have equal custody of the children, e.g. children spend one week with one parent and then the next week with the other parent. They both have custody for 26 weeks. In this situation neither parent is considered to have main care and charge of

the children. DSCFA therefore considers neither parent to be eligible for

One-Parent Family Payment or Family Income Supplement. This contrasts with the single parent tax credit which, in these circumstances, would be available to each of the parents. We consider that the rules should allow one parent to be eligible for the OPFP.

Income in residential care

People going into residential full-time care retain existing social welfare payments and, although most of the payment goes to the health board for maintenance, the resident may retain 20% as ‘pocket money'. There are still a number of people who would have been on the former DPMA and lost their payment when they went into residential care. They are not currently eligible for Disability Allowance (DA). We recommend that as a matter of urgency DA be extended to this group, who have no entitlement to any income whatsoever.

Disabled Person's Housing Grant

The NSSB carried out a review of this grant during 1998 and, as a result, identified shortcomings. The following recommendations are based on the outcome of the review:

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government has acknowledged that the information available about the scheme is inadequate. More funding has been applied in recent times but there is still no guarantee that adequate funding will be available to meet all qualifying applications.

Drugs Payment Scheme

Queries from members of the public to both CICs and Comhairle point to a problem for some people in relation to having to pay for drugs and medicines that were formerly included in the scheme. In some cases relatively high costs are incurred. The Drugs Payment Scheme should be reviewed with a view to broadening the common list of medicines and including all prescribed drugs in order to deal more equitably with such situations.

Part 2: Co-ordination Issues

From reports we receive from CICs, Comhairle is very conscious of the need to ensure that there is co-ordination between the different agencies providing services to the public.

Medical cards, social welfare payments and minimum wages

It is necessary to ensure that there is co-ordination between the eligibility requirements for different schemes, rules etc. In particular, there needs to be a clear relationship between the level of the national minimum wage, social welfare payments generally and specifically the income limits for Family Income Supplement and the income limits for medical cards. These are key issues in the avoidance of unemployment traps.

In recent years the rate of increase in the medical card income guidelines has not kept pace with the increases in either social welfare payments or earnings. The introduction of the National Minimum Wage means that very few fully employed people qualify for a medical card, unless they retain it as part of the secondary benefits retention arrangements.

At present, only about 31% of the population have medical cards. When the retention arrangements expire for the majority of people the percentage will be lower.

Social welfare payments

For example, a 64-year-old man on Invalidity Pension would be receiving a payment of £81.00 which is below the medical card income guideline of £93.00. On reaching his 65^th birthday his payment would increase to £96 and he would be over the guideline at least until he reaches 66. A married man and his qualified adult on Contributory Old Age Pension where both are aged 66 - 69 receive a total payment of £160.60. This is above the relevant medical card income guideline.

We consider that the medical card income guidelines need to be increased, in particular for the under 70s, in order to avoid people receiving standard social welfare payments being ineligible for medical cards

Minimum Wage

The medical card income guideline for a single person under age 66 is £93.50. A person who is working 40 hours per week and is being paid the minimum wage of £4.40 an hour receives a wage of £176.00. If the person only worked 30 hours per week, he/she would still greatly exceed the income guideline for a medical card.

Rehabilitative Employment

A person on Disability Allowance or Blind Person's Pension can earn up to £75.00 per week if the work is considered by DSCFA to be of a rehabilitative nature without affecting their payment. This would give them a total income of £152.50. If the work is not part of an employment scheme the individual will be means tested and is likely to lose their medical card.

A person on Invalidity Pension or Disability Benefit (DB) can similarly work for a maximum of 20 hours and retain their payment. If paid the minimum wage of £4.40 total income would be £169.10 (£165.50 for DB). Similarly if this is competitive employment eligibility for the medical card would be likely to be lost.

Given the benefit to the individual's health of such therapeutic work and society's wish to reduce the number of unemployed people with disabilities the income threshold needs to be raised to remove this barrier to people with disabilities who wish to pursue employment of a rehabilitative nature which may in due course lead to more permanent, non-supported employment.

Alignment with relevant income levels

Consideration should be given to aligning the medical card income limits with other relevant income levels - for example, they could be directly related to FIS or to the National Minimum Wage.

Total loss of medical card

It could also be decided to phase out the loss of medical cards by allowing families to retain for a defined period a medical card in respect of their children when their income reaches a certain level. Concern about the loss of a medical card is frequently related to the costs of medical treatment for children.

Timing

At present, there is no connection between the timing of the increased income guidelines for medical cards and increases in social welfare payments. It is to be hoped that all of these will be put on a calendar year basis at the same time as the tax system.

Enforcement of Employment Laws

There is a range of bodies charged with employment law enforcement and yet it is clear that many of these laws are not actually enforced. Primary responsibility for the implementation of employment laws rests with the employer. Among the bodies with an implementation role are:

The major enforcement body, the EAT, has no inspection role and there is nobody checking, for example, whether or not employees are being granted their right to paid leave. It is possible that an individual employer could be visited by inspectors from the Health and Safety Authority and the Revenue Commissioners but neither would check on holiday entitlement.

There is a need for much greater co-ordination in this area. The question of an overriding employment inspectorate should be examined. The same inspector should be able to check that all aspects of employment law, including conditions of employment, tax and PRSI and health and safety are being complied with. The overall objective should be to ensure that, when an employment premises is visited by a public official, all aspects of the law are inspected.

Meanwhile, improvements could be made in informing both employees and employers of the protective legislation which applies. The following proposals would improve the current information deficit in this area:

Clear and detailed information on employment rights should be provided by the Revenue Commissioners to each person as he/she takes up work for the first time. Further information could be provided as tax free allowances information is sent out. The Revenue Commissioners already perform this service in respect of Family Income Supplement.

Similar information should be provided to employers, especially small employers, when they register for the first time. This information could be supplemented each year as new information on tax and PRSI is provided.

Responsibility for compiling the relevant information would rest with the Department of ETE while the Revenue Commissioners would be responsible for disseminating it. The Department of ETE should take a more active role in providing suitable information and in informing employees of their rights.

It should be mandatory for employers to display information about employment rights in the same way as they are obliged to display information about safety and the employment of young people.

These issues will be addressed in more detail in the forthcoming Comhairle Social Policy Report on Employment Rights.

Part 3: Service Delivery Issues

Delays in processing claims

Reports from CICs suggest that the time taken to process social welfare claims is increasing. The increased reliance on SWA basic payments is further evidence of these delays. There was a significant increase in the number of SWA basic payments during 1999; some of this is attributable to asylum seekers but an element is due to the delays in processing claims for social welfare payments. The situation in respect of delays seems to have worsened in the year 2000.

Reports from a number of centres indicated that there were delays in the processing of claims for a number of benefits or schemes. For example,

All of the schemes or services mentioned here involve means testing applicants, and thus there is clearly a time element involved in the process. In addition, the volume of applications for some or all of these benefits may also cause delays in the processing procedure. However, the level of frustration caused to applicants could perhaps be reduced by providing applicants with some indication at the point of application as to how long the process will take.

In their Strategy Statement 1998-2001, the Department of Social Community and Family Affairs published, as part of their service standards, the ‘Clearance Time Targets' for a variety of payments. This refers to the time which elapses from date of receipt to date of decision. These vary considerably between the different payments - for example, the Department aims to have 55% of OACP claims cleared within five weeks, while the clearance time for Carer's Allowance is 80% in 8 weeks. These times appear to relate to targets which the Department thinks are realistic, given the volume and complexity of particular applications.

Appeals

Over the past two years, reports from CICs show that delays in the appeals system have increased considerably. One report received indicated that an appeal against a refusal of Injury Benefit took more than twelve months to process. Several others indicate problems with the length of time taken to appeal the refusal of Disability Benefit and Unemployment Assistance. The Annual Report of the Social Welfare Appeals Office has acknowledged that the length of time taken to process appeals is unsatisfactory.

Absence of formal appeals system

The NSSB has drawn attention many times in the past to the absence of a formal appeals system for some of the DSCFA schemes and generally in the health services. This continues to be unsatisfactory and we consider that a formal appeals system should be instituted for these schemes. Among the DSCFA schemes which do not have a formal appeals system are the free schemes and the Back to Work and Back to Education allowances.

We have already argued that the free schemes and the BTW and BTE schemes should be put on a statutory basis thus bringing them within the remit of the Appeals Office.

We have also drawn attention to the absence of an appeals system for medical cards and generally throughout the health services. The introduction of such systems is long overdue.

Complaints Procedures

As well as formal appeals procedures, there is a need for complaints procedures to be available to citizens who feel they have been treated unfairly or discourteously. This is a quite separate issue from appeals systems. It would arise in cases where the person has no basis for complaint about the outcome of their application but considers that there was an undue time delay, that the official dealing with the issue behaved badly, that wrong, inadequate or no information was given. The procedure could also deal with complaints about inadequate service - for example, that the system does not cater for the need in question or that the conditions attached to schemes are unduly onerous.

We recognise that aggrieved citizens may complain to the Ombudsman, but, as he himself has noted, there is a need for internal complaints procedures within public bodies themselves, so that issues could be resolved without recourse to his office. This issue was also raised as far back as 1995 in the Report of the National Economic and Social Forum on Quality Delivery of Social Services, which recommended that ‘(citizens) should have the right to an independent well advertised and easily accessible grievance and/or complaints procedure'.

The Revenue Commissioners have established an external review mechanism which allows aggrieved taxpayers to complain to an external reviewer if they consider that they have been unfairly treated. This is one possible model for a complaints procedure.

Initially, complaints procedures for all activities and schemes should be established in the DSCFA and in the health boards. There should be some external element to these procedures and their existence should be widely advertised.

Inadequate funding for schemes

We have already drawn attention to the inadequate funding issue in relation to the Disabled Person's Housing Grant. This issue also arises in, for example, the scheme of housing aid for the elderly. Reports from CICs suggest that there can be a two year delay in availing of this scheme because it is inadequately funded. The absence of a statutory basis for these and similar schemes means that funding can be restricted in this way. We consider that all of these schemes should be available as of right, should have a legislative basis and should be adequately funded.

Codes of practice governing relationships between public servants and clients

All public service providers who deal directly with clients should have a code of practice which governs their dealings with the client. The Revenue Commissioners and social welfare officers currently have such a code. Areas where codes are needed include dealings between all social welfare officials and clients, between the various authorities and asylum seekers and between health board officials and applicants for various services, in particular between Community Welfare Officers and their clients.

The codes should cover areas such as dealings with the client in his/her home, rights to information and appeals procedures etc. Clients should be given a copy of the relevant code.

The Ombudsman's Guide to Good Practice should be used as the basis for these codes.

From time to time, there should be a review to establish how well the codes are being implemented and to get the clients' views on them. The Charter for Hospital Patients is now ripe for such a review.

Funding for Core Services

Over the past decade many essential services have been provided through the Community Employment (CE) programme. The gaps in service provision that that are arising as a result of the phasing out of CE need to be addressed and other means of funding such services need to be identified. This is particularly relevant in the case of personal assistants to people with disabilities, community transport schemes and day care services.