Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

This is the first consolidation Bill in social welfare legislation since 1993. There have been umpteen Bills since then. It is important that there is one overall Bill that can be the reference point to which people can go to ensure they understand all available social welfare schemes. While this will be of major benefit to citizens' information centres and advocacy groups, it will be of particular benefit to the staff in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is important the information from this Bill is disseminated down the line in the Department to ensure a consistent understanding among social welfare officers of the various schemes available.

In recent times, I have been disappointed in the measure of inconsistency in the decisions of deciding officers. I know of individual cases where if the deciding officer does not receive the information required, the file is closed and the payment refused. In many cases, it then goes to the appeals officer who grants the payment. While it is important to have an appeals system, I am disappointed by how many original decisions are overturned on appeal. One can either come to the conclusion that an appeals officer is right or wrong. If an appeals officer is right, it means the original deciding officer was wrong. I am upset by poor people in a tight situation having to wait several months before getting a decision. If an independent appeals officer can overturn a decision it means there was a basis to arriving at a different decision in the first place.

Some time ago I dealt with a case that eventually went to the Ombudsman who was critical that different officers within the system could come to different decisions although the same facts and circumstances were presented to them. While we have consolidation of social welfare legislation, I want to see a consolidation of information to ensure it works for the people at local level.

Since the last consolidation Bill, many new elements have come into the social welfare arena. Under Sustaining Progress, a commitment to make social welfare legislation available in a single and accessible document was made. Various Departments that introduce annual legislation must have a default system whereby when such legislation is passed it automatically is consolidated within existing legislation. For example, each annual Social Welfare Bill must be consolidated into existing legislation rather than simply having a merry-go-round and returning on an ad hoc basis every ten years to rectify the matter.

More than 1 million people benefit from social welfare on a weekly basis. The improvements which have been introduced since the last consolidation Bill include carer's allowance, carer's benefit, the farm assist scheme and another which I was very keen on and which I called the pro rata pension for old age pensioners. It affects those mainly self-employed people who did not have up to ten years of PRSI contributions. All Members have encountered cases of people with nine years and 51 weeks of contributions but who received nothing until that legislation was introduced, giving them a pension of 50%. They would like a pension of 99% but a pension of 50% is a major step in the right direction.

I welcomed the introduction of other legislation in this area which attracted much criticism. That disappointed me. I refer to the pre-1953 pension which allowed people who had worked in earlier years to qualify for an old age pension. As their working career took place so long ago, their annual average contributions may not have qualified them for a pension under the traditional rules. Consequently, the Government introduced the pre-1953 pension. A total of 29,000 people now benefit from it which is to be welcomed.

However, most of the debates in this House and in the committees about that scheme centred on its cost. People said it cost too much, the original estimate on budget day was one figure while the final outcome was a much greater figure. It demonstrated some begrudgery, mainly on the part of the Opposition, to the effect that this scheme was a waste of money because the estimates were wrong. It was stated that the Government got it wrong because the original estimate was X while the final cost per annum was Y. The hidden innuendo in that type of remark was that perhaps we should not pay that money in the first place.

See this speech in context