Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I thank the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, for being present for the debate. It is important that the responsible Minister be present to hear the contributions we make.

I also compliment the staff in his Department who provide an excellent service, both in regard to access to information and the provision of information in a speedy and comprehensive manner to Members of the Oireachtas and the public. If the Minister could instil one thing in his Government colleagues it should be for them to follow the benchmark of the officials in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. If that were the case, a great deal less time would be spent dealing with personal issues on the floor of the House or in written parliamentary questions. All the officials in the Department deserve credit in terms of their accessibility and responsiveness to queries raised by Members.

In addition, I specifically compliment the information officers in the Department offices around the country who do a tremendous job. They provide information in an unbiased manner. In many Departments, people have difficulty gaining access to unbiased information from agents of the State. People are afraid that if they bring something to the attention of a Department they could end up either being prosecuted or penalised for it. Not only do information officers provide useful information in a user-friendly manner but they also make themselves available to address public meetings in their catchment areas. All credit is due to them.

Citizens information centres do a tremendous job in making information available to the public. On Monday I heard Derek Mooney's radio programme on Radio 1. A representative of the citizens information network has a regular slot on that programme. The type and clarity of the information provided is most useful. A similar service is provided by citizens information officers throughout the country on local radio stations.

There are two aspects to the Bill, the first of which is to facilitate the implementation of the Government's legislative programme in terms of improving services for people with disabilities. It will also enhance the functions of Comhairle and rename it the Citizens Information Board.

The first issue I want to raise does not relate directly to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It relates to Comhairle, the Citizens Information Board and, sadly, the Health Service Executive. It came to my attention last August that the standard letter the Health Service Executive now issues to applicants for medical cards and those who have had their medical card entitlement reviewed does not give any explanation as to the reasons for a decision. A person who is granted a GP-only card is not told that he or she can appeal the decision and is not given a breakdown of how means are calculated, as was standard procedure under the former health boards. For some unknown reason the Health Service Executive does not want to release that information to the public. That is wrong on two counts. First, people have a basic right to be told why they are deemed ineligible for a medical card or a GP-only card. This was common practice until the Health Service Executive took over. Second, people should be informed of their right to appeal a decision. That is not happening. They are aware they can appeal the granting of a GP-only card instead of a medical card, but they are not informed to whom the appeal should be submitted nor are they informed that they can appeal a decision to refuse them a medical card. A bunch of gurus within the Health Service Executive replaced the medical card application forms with a new combined medical card application form and, based on the responses sent to people around the country, it drafted a new standard letter which takes no account of people's basic right to information. It is clear that the Health Service Executive is in an ivory tower and does not consult with individuals on the ground who are at the front line of the service.

I raised this issue with the local Health Service Executive officers last August. A couple of the officials within the Health Service Executive contacted me directly and complimented me on highlighting this issue, but it took until 21 November to get a response, and that response was to the effect that my suggestions had been forwarded to the IT unit for its attention. That is wholly unacceptable and a gross infringement of the right of the public to information.

I will turn to the Minister in a minute but while I am on the issue of medical cards and the gurus who examined the application forms, the standard application form does not include a section for a statement of income, which was previously standard procedure. It is standard procedure in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and certainly in the health boards in the west. Whether we agree with the method of calculation is not the point. There was such a section in the application form which has now been removed. The form is four or five pages longer than it used to be but when someone makes an application they invariably receive a response to the effect that they have not provided all the information required. That is wholly unacceptable. It delays the issuing of medical cards to people who are entitled to them and this delay denies people their basic rights. It is time the Health Service Executive got its act together in this regard. If it does not have the competency within its organisation, there are plenty of Members on both sides of this House who would be quite willing to advise as to the basic information that should be required in these forms and the response that should be given to individuals. If the Health Service Executive is not prepared to talk to Members, I am sure the Minister would make his officials available to address these basic problems.

I also want to raise the issue of the right to information in the context of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The purpose of the family income supplement is to give a top-up payment to low income families. It is a very useful payment for those who are aware of it. It takes them above the poverty line and makes staying in employment a viable option for many people. However, many people are unaware of the availability of family income supplement. I am aware the Department has done studies on this in the past and runs advertising campaigns at regular intervals to provide information to the public. We are falling short in this area and a special effort needs to be made to try to increase the uptake of family income supplement. Given the large non-national population working here, that information needs to be made available not only in the English and Irish languages but also in other European languages.

The farm assist scheme is another scheme that has not had the type of uptake that would be expected, as shown by the Department's research. Part of the problem is the difficulty in assessing farmers' eligibility. I am aware it will be difficult, but I ask the Minister to re-examine the issue with a view to resolving that problem. It has also been brought to my attention that farmers who are liable to tax believe they should have the option of making their tax returns to the Revenue Commissioners available to the Department of Social and Family Affairs as proof of their income. It would not suit farmers who are not liable to tax and I would not want to put them to the expense of producing accounts. However, where accounts are produced, it should be possible to provide these to the social welfare inspector as proof of income rather than requiring people to go through the whole rigmarole of providing receipts and documentation again. It would speed up the processing of a number of schemes. I ask the Minister to examine that possibility. When I raised the issue in the House on 1 November the Minister responded that the tax assessments show the factual income position as required under the social welfare legislation and could be used by a social welfare inspector in preparing a report but that this would not be a reliable approach in all cases. I accept that, but in many cases it would suffice and it would reduce delays in processing some applications.

Over the years the Department has examined in detail issues relating to carers. We need to provide access to basic health and safety information to home carers in particular. They should, for example, have to right to go on a manual lifting course, even if they are not entitled to a carer's allowance. They should be allowed to attend a short course to learn the basic steps a home carer must deal with on a daily basis, including working with elderly or disabled people and other health and safety issues.

I also ask the Minister to review the carer's allowance application form, which has come in for criticism owing to the volume of paperwork that needs to be completed. We do not want to turn people off when they see the application form. People can be discouraged from applying for schemes when they see the size of the application form. In many cases, when one goes through the form, it is not too difficult for most people. We need to consider streamlining the forms and making them more accessible and I know the Department has done considerable work in that regard.

It would be great if it were no longer necessary for people to submit birth and marriage certificates. I welcome that it is no longer necessary to submit children's birth certificates to receive child benefit. I am the beneficiary of that change, which is a positive development. I do not know why the rest of the population, including older people, are required to get these certificates and submit them given that they are now available electronically. Where there may be a difficulty in certain circumstances, let the Department revert to the applicant advising that it cannot locate the electronic record and asking him or her to supply the physical certificate. In many cases, there is no such need. The technology exists and the Department is using it very successfully for the payment of child benefit for newborn babies. Surely it can be rolled out for the rest of the population.

On the subject of electronic communication, I ask the Minister to work with the Minister for Agriculture and Food to address the issue of the farmers' early retirement scheme. On reaching the age of 66, farmers in receipt of early retirement payments are supposed to have the value of the old age pension deducted from their early retirement payment. While we can argue about it, that is the law as it stands. Owing to a lack of communication between the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Agriculture and Food, farmers often get a letter from the Department of Agriculture and Food 12 or 18 months later seeking recoupment of the value of the old age pension.

Today, it is the farmers' responsibility upon receipt of their social welfare pension to advise the Department. Surely the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which is aware that the farmer is in receipt of the early retirement payment because it is mentioned on the application form, could advise the Department of Agriculture and Food that the person is now in receipt of an old age pension and that its value should be deducted from the farm retirement payment. This would avoid people getting demands for large amounts of money from the Department of Agriculture and Food purely because of the existing lack of communication. It would not take much to do this and would simplify the system and reduce hardship for many people.

I wish to raise an old chestnut with the Minister, which is the leasing of land for farmers. While I know the Minister and his officials are sick to death of me raising this issue, I will continue to raise it until we get some movement on it. At present, someone in receipt of a non-contributory State pension who is in employment has the first €100 of income exempted from the means test, which is commendable. However, in the case of a farmer who was in the early retirement scheme and it finishes or is not in the early retirement scheme and is leasing out land, the full value of the lease minus €20 per week is taken off the income.

In many cases it does not make financial sense for farmers to lease out their land. It makes more sense for them to keep two cattle on that land so that an income assessment can be done. It causes delays and ties up social welfare inspectors' time carrying out unnecessary assessments. The amount of income coming in is extremely small and it also prevents the release of farmland to young progressive farmers, who might stay in a rural area and reduce the isolation of such farmers. It would also reduce the amount of land going to rack and ruin belonging mainly to farmers without any successor.

It is difficult enough for farmers who are leasing their land and are not involved in the farm retirement scheme because at any stage they can choose to revert to farming again by putting two cows on the land, leading to the need to carry out a farm income assessment. However, once farmers leave the early retirement scheme, they have no other option but to lease the land or transfer it to a successor because they cannot go back farming, as it is one of the conditions of the early retirement scheme. It causes extreme hardship for them because while they are in the farm retirement scheme, the first €5,000 of the value of the lease is exempt from income assessment regarding the State non-contributory pension. However, once they leave the early retirement scheme, the full value of the lease less €20 per week comes into the means calculation. The Minister should consider this anomaly.

Introducing the same exemption for long-term leases as already exists in the Department of Social and Family Affairs for participants in the Department of Agriculture and Food's early retirement scheme would address the anomaly in most cases. This problem is only arising now because, from the end of this year, farmers will be leaving the early retirement scheme and it will become a bigger issue in coming years. I have raised this matter on numerous occasions.

Farmers became liable to pay PRSI in the late 1980s. Any farmers without five years' contributions paid at the time they reach 66 are not entitled to any State contributory pension. Surely this could be given to them on a pro rata basis based on the two or three years they paid PRSI. While it only affects a small number of cases, it is causing hardship and is an anomaly that the Minister should review. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context