Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

I compliment the Minister and his officials for bringing forward the Social Welfare Consolidation Bill 2005. There is a significant corpus of social welfare legislation, the Minister referred to 16 enactments, since 1993. This consolidation Bill is important from a lawyer's perspective as one will be able to go to one corpus of legislation and extract what is required. It is also important for the layperson to know his or her due entitlements. The Minister stated he will bring forward an explanatory memorandum to get around the need for reliance upon archaic language which bedevils all legislation brought to the House. Simplified and codified legislation is an extremely important aspect of ensuring the citizens for whom legislation is introduced have access and know its contents and the entitlements derived therefrom. In conveyancing law there is a requirement for archaic terms such as "fee tail" and "fee farm grants" that go back to feudal times. However, in social welfare legislation it is important to simplify its terms.

This morning I examined the 2001 decision by Mr. Justice Niall Fennelly which gave the then Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs the legal basis to claim back moneys it was due beyond the six year statutory period which would be the normal contractual situation. I want to ensure people who may be due moneys from the Department are allowed to go back beyond this six year period. Sometimes the Department of Social and Family Affairs has a habit of pulling down the shutters to preclude people from their entitlements because of a cut-off period. A case concerning entitlements was brought to the Ombudsman who gave short shrift to the arguments made by the Department. I am often bemused that if one's application for a bereavement grant is beyond the six months specified time, one must give an explanation as to why it is late. Bloody hell, it is not the Department's business as to why it is late. If one is entitled to it, then that should be it. Cut out this erecting of a Berlin Wall around entitlements.

Many people do not know their entitlements. I am shocked that in affluent Ireland, although we are still living in a level of poverty as we heard from the Combat Poverty Agency yesterday, a significant body does not know its exact entitlements. We have failed as legislators in ensuring the information is imparted. If an individual is due an entitlement back for six or more years, he or she must get it and be on a level playing pitch with the Department which received that power from Mr. Justice Niall Fennelly's judgment in 2001. While we cannot introduce amendments to consolidation Bills, in the forthcoming social welfare Bill I will pay particular attention to this area.

Enactments laid down in a statutory framework bring certainty but can also introduce inflexibility and eliminate discretion. I wish to illustrate this with regard to a representation from a man in County Kerry regarding his entitlement to credited contribution in respect of his carer's allowance. He looks after his wife who has motor neurone disease. The Department informed him that to qualify for carer's allowance credits, a person requires a paid and credited employment contribution that is reckonable for benefits, that is class A PRSI contributions, in either of the two complete contribution years immediately preceding the date of the award of the allowance. This individual is a self-employed person who has given up his employment to look after his wife. The Department informed him that regrettably, as his last PRSI contribution prior to the award of his carer's allowance was paid as a class S PRSI contribution, he does not qualify for carer's allowance credits. Class S PRSI contributions refer to self-employment and are reckonable for contributory old age pension and contributory widow's or widower's pension but are not reckonable for benefits. Hence, someone who is in receipt of carer's allowance, who previously paid self-employed stamps, is not entitled to credits as a carer.

We pay lip-service to carers. How much would it cost the State if that man sought to have his wife placed in an institution? I know from the experience of my wife's elderly great-aunt in Dublin that it can cost up to €1,000 per week. In the midlands it costs between €450 and €600 per week. We should give people like that man the credits. We should salute a person like that and say "Well done, good and faithful servant", to use a biblical quotation. He has adhered to the matrimonial commitment for better or for worse to the nth degree. He has left his self-employed job to look after her, for a carer's allowance of some €150. Yet he does not get the credits because previously he only paid Class S1 PRSI contributions. That type of anomaly or rigidity and stupidity is what leads to someone being placed in an institution. Even though that option costs €600 or €1,000 per week, the carer's allowance only costs the State €150. That individual saves the State an enormous amount, but we will not give him the credit.

A former Fine Gael politician, who is no longer with us, used to claim that he was "an idea a week" person. The Minister is an "idea every three days" person. I grant him that. Compared with his predecessor, he does not seek photo opportunities. He does not cost us too much money in consultancy fees. Like me, he submits an old photograph and if it is accepted, it is good enough. Like the Minister, I do not overly mind whether my hair is combed. At least the Minister does not cost us too much money in that regard.

See this speech in context