My question relates directly to the Minister's Department and policies. Last year, there was an outcry from families of children with special needs about the dramatic increase in the refusal of the domiciliary care allowance, a consequent alarming increase in the number of appeals and the waiting times for those appeals, which often went up to a year. In a parliamentary question I put to the Minister last week to which I received an answer, the same shocking pattern revealed itself when it came to applications for invalidity pensions. In 2009, 39% of applications were refused. In 2011 when the Government took office, the figure jumped to 69% while the figure in 2012 was 64%. As a result, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of appeals so that in 2012, there was a 700% increase in the number of appeals through which people had to go as opposed to 2009. That has led to the appeals office being completely overrun and unable to cope. Only one quarter of the 4,356 appeals lodged in 2012 were decided. This means that thousands of people with chronic illnesses and injuries have to wait up to and over a year to have their appeals heard for invalidity pension. There is widespread anecdotal evidence of similar patterns when it comes to applications for carer's allowance and disability allowance.

Why are the Minister's Department and medical assessors second-guessing consultants and GPs who are testifying to the fact that people are physically or mentally unable to work? Is she deliberately denying some of the most vulnerable people - ill people with chronic illnesses - their just entitlements? Where does this leave her constant protestations that she will defend the vulnerable, including people with special needs, when there is clear evidence of a systematic pattern on the part of her Government of denying vulnerable people their rightful entitlements and forcing them into situations of anxiety, desperation and suffering as a result of cuts she is imposing but which she dresses up as reform?

I thank the Deputy for his question. To begin with his first point about domiciliary care allowance, I answered a question about this a few days' ago, as the Deputy noted. I am happy to repeat to the House that the waiting period for domiciliary care allowance - the Deputy has the statistics in the answer to his question - has been reduced to six weeks following the reforms of the IT platform. That is a very significant development and I compliment the staff of the Department of Social Protection working in the context of significant changes introduced in the Department as a consequence of the Croke Park agreement. They have reformed the IT system. In the context of more applications for domiciliary care allowance and a change to what is called a new IT structure, the waiting period has been reduced to six weeks and the backlog has largely been addressed. I am delighted to tell the Deputy that current applications for domiciliary care allowance should now take about six weeks.

I previously explained to the Deputy that while the volumes, funding and the numbers being awarded domiciliary care allowance are increasing, certain applications are not complete when presented. Deputies know this in respect of different cases. The Deputy referred to people's medical experts. It is for people's family doctors and consultants if they are involved to make a case in clear medical terms and in line with the legislation as to why somebody qualifies for the allowance so that the medical assessors, who are medically qualified people working in my Department, can take account of the advice and opinion of the person's own medical advisers.

If the information is not forthcoming at the time of application, we allow fresh evidence to be submitted and if that is not satisfactory, people have a right of appeal. The improvements in information technology brought about by the staff in my Department have resulted in a six week waiting time. The backlog of family income supplement applications has been almost totally eliminated. We have made major improvements and, in a time of unprecedented economic difficulty, protected core rates of weekly social welfare payments and are providing additional funding under all of these headings.

Another factor affecting the number of applications is that in 2010 the then Fianna Fáil Government reduced the payment period of illness benefit from an indefinite period to two years. Deputies who deal with these cases will be aware that a consequence of this decision was an increase in the number of people coming forward because their two year period had expired and they were seeking to migrate to another payment. They also had a right, by and large, to return to jobseeker's allowance.

The Minister did not really answer my question. In so far as there has been an improvement to the domiciliary care allowance, I give credit to the staff.

Thank you, Deputy. That is a first.

I give most credit to-----

The Deputy actually praised a civil servant.

The Minister had her chance. I give most credit to the families who came out on the streets last year and embarrassed the Government into acknowledging the disgraceful mistreatment of families with special needs. They forced the Minister to address the problem, but it is now being moved to another area. She has completely failed to address the fact that since the Government took office the number of refusals of invalidity pension has dramatically increased by 64%, from 39% in 2011 to 69% in 2012. Two thirds of applicants may be receiving an answer within a few weeks, but they are being refused.

I will give an example of the people who are being refused. In most cases, they had an entitlement to illness benefit. In other words, the Department accepted that they were not fit for work and paid them illness benefit. When people applied for invalidity pension after two years, they were denied it in two thirds of cases. I know of one individual who had worked for 40 years as a bin man before developing rheumatoid arthritis and problems with his heart, knee and back. He was denied, despite being completely unable to work. I can provide a litany of similar examples of individuals who are made to suffer for months as they beg and appeal for their entitlements.

Is there not a systematic policy of first stop refusal if the Department can find any excuse whatsoever, even when medical assistance has been provided by GPs and consultants? When people appeal, they often have to pay €200 for a consultant's letter stating the Department should not have refused them in the first place. That is another cost for those who are ill and vulnerable. It is disgraceful. Stop treating people in this bureaucratic way and give them their entitlements.

If the Deputy's assertions were correct-----

They are.

I can provide the statistics.

Order, please.

One of the stand-out figures about the country and our social protection system is that 16% of the working age population are in receipt of some kind of illness, disability or invalidity payment.

Is that their fault?

During the boom period that figure increased and it is dramatically higher than in other countries. I have noted that in 2010 the then Government made a decision to limit the payment of illness benefit to two years.

Will the Minister speak about her own record?

Illness benefit is certified by the applicant's own medical adviser who submits the certificate to the Department of Social Protection. The payment period of illness benefit was previously unlimited and somebody could have remained on illness benefit for an indefinite period provided he or she was certified under the medical system, with which most Members are familiar. That system was changed in 2010. This has resulted in a large increase in the numbers applying for payments under other medical related schemes. I am delighted Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has conceded that the civil servants in the Department have worked hard to improve the system.

I have no problem with them. My problem is with the policy.

We are spending more money on more people under these headings. The Deputy's notion that social welfare illness payments are being denied to people is wide of the mark.

The refusal rate is 64%.

I can provide the statistics showing that two thirds are being refused.

The Deputy has acknowledged that applications are now being processed in a much shorter period of time. I am glad he was, for once, gracious enough to concede that point.