Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

Yes. The Labour Party is deeply alarmed by the Government's proposal to subsume the community welfare service into the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Labour Party Members strongly believe this service which caters for the most vulnerable in our society and which operates on the cutting edge of the link between health and poverty is best left exactly where it is, that is, within the health service. If it is not broken, why will the Minister break it? Is this little more than a carefully disguised cutback and attack on the vulnerable?

As I predicted in the House two months ago, community welfare officers, CWOs, will be reined in and prevented from providing information, advice and advocacy for vulnerable persons and communities. Consequently, the latter's most effective link to statutory health and personal social services will be effectively severed. While the Minister claims that this cannot happen, it is possible because the people served by CWOs, including those with addictions, mental health problems, abuse victims and people with chronic social behavioural and psychological issues, are far more likely to access health and personal social services through community welfare than through formal channels. This is because the possibility of discretionary community welfare payments provides an incentive and allows CWOs to make needs assessments and put such people in touch with appropriate health services.

As Deputy Stanton noted, CWOs are much more than mere financial administrators and most adopt a holistic approach. While a few may think they are the Minister for Finance, they are the exceptions, as 99.9% deal with issues in a highly positive manner. If the proposed transfer goes ahead, the Government will be running an unacceptably high risk that the link between payments and access to health services will be severed over time, if not rapidly. This is because the Department of Social and Family Affairs will be reluctant to fund functions for which it has no statutory responsibility. Realistically, it cannot be expected to develop an interest in identifying or meeting health or personal social service needs in the way community welfare officers do. They are not its responsibility. It would be highly unlikely to continue to devote resources to functions for which it was not responsible.

The Government's policy is based on the report of an interdepartmental review group, Core Functions of the Health Service Report, which recommended transfer. I do not see any difficulty with the objective of focusing the HSE's resources, activities and core health functions. However, the community welfare service performs a core health function. It is a profound misunderstanding to characterise the service as limited administration with cash benefits through the social welfare assistance scheme. The administration of the SWA scheme is a core part of the work of CWOs. As the late Frank Cluskey stated when introducing the scheme in 1977, it was more than a mere cash response. The service was deliberately placed within the community care structure and under the auspices of the Department of Health and Children with the intention of delivering a local response to individual needs and, crucially, providing its clients with access to a range of health and personal social services. The importance of the relationship between income maintenance and effective health and personal social services, as well as a safety net separate from other social welfare payments, was clearly and specifically identified in the Dáil debates as what had led to the establishment of the service.

These factors are as real and important today as when the scheme was first introduced. We are concerned that the proposed transfer would inevitably mean an end to discretionary SWA payments which would have direct and damaging effects on a client's ability to access health services, even if this is not the intent. It is hard to see how the discretionary element of payments could survive within the culture, structure and operational practices of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This not a criticism of the Department. Rather, it is a recognition of a fundamental difference of approach. CWOs can make immediate payments to meet identified needs within clear guidelines using discretion when required. The Department administers entitlement based payments with a slower and more formal procedure which is not designed to respond rapidly to the urgent individual cases with which all public representatives are familiar.

It seems ironic that the Government intends to implement this transfer at a time when funding was provided belatedly to implement the primary care strategy. The community welfare service is a key component of that strategy which proposes an integrated team based approach involving interdisciplinary teams of health professionals in treatment and preventive care. Other health professionals within primary care teams have acknowledged a need to involve CWOs and have, therefore, expressed concern about the proposed transfer which will make this more difficult. Health professionals across the board also recognise the link between health and income maintenance and, therefore, highly value the contribution of discretionary SWA payments to positive health outcomes.

The existing community welfare service performs a core health function. The service works well and provides vital access to health services for the most vulnerable in our communities. The proposal to transfer it involves substantial risk to the quality and integrity of the service and its contribution to the primary care strategy and approved health outcomes. The Labour Party calls on the Minister to reverse the decision to transfer the service. We support the view of the trade union representing CWOs that before any change in the service is proposed or implemented, we require a full study of the service and, as Deputy Stanton stated, wide consultation on the likely effect of changes with those who manage, deliver, use and interact with it.

This measure will not be implemented until a commencement order is in place. A commencement order needs 21 sitting days before becoming effective. Therefore, it will not be implemented during the lifetime of the Government. I was surprised the Minister brought it forward. Someone must be buzzing at his ear. He is a shrewd politician. I give him that; he is able to smell the roses. Someone must have persecuted him to include this in the Bill. I could hazard a guess but will leave it at that. I will tell him one thing. We will not vote against much of what is included in the Bill because it is extremely positive. However, we will vote against this measure and fight it tooth and nail.

What the late Frank Cluskey introduced in the scheme was flexible, adaptable and allowed discretion. Is the Minister prepared to guarantee the discretion vested in the community welfare scheme will remain when this falls within the remit of the Department? Where will we find people at 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. with intimate knowledge of the environment in which we all work and who are able to react rapidly to deal with an impending crisis? Where will this happen? Who will put it in place? I have said enough on this and the Minister knows the Labour Party view. Please God, no commencement order will be made and if we are returned to power, this will be another duck which will not fly.

Deputy Stanton is correct to state the universality of child benefit was fractured by the habitual residency condition. This is extremely regrettable. Looking back, the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, told us about the great crisis of immigrants flooding the country but nothing could be further from the truth. Very often the people flooding the country want to work. Hundreds of Irish people are refused welfare benefits because a restriction introduced to prevent welfare tourism by immigrants applies to them. More than 880 Irish nationals have been refused benefits such as unemployment assistance, one-parent family payment and old age pension. It also affects returning Irish emigrants such as priests and other Irish nationals who were not here on a regular basis. Figures from the Minister's study show the rationale for the continued use of the restrictions is no longer valid. Migrant workers arrive in Ireland to work rather than to claim welfare benefit. Migrant or any workers who experience exploitation should be allowed access to social protection, irrespective of nationality, length of time in the country or legal status. We must ensure no more acts of exploitation such as what happened in GAMA occur. This is extremely important.

A young person was in contact with me regarding people being cut off from social welfare payments. It is important that people are given due notice; it is not a matter of cutting off payments and then explaining why. I raised the matter in the Dáil. Surely people should be brought in and given an explanation as to why a particular payment is being terminated or what is the position. The issue of unceremoniously stopping payments without prior explanation or warning must be addressed because it causes real hardship and stress for those living from week to week on a tiny income. If an accusation of wrongdoing is made, it should be investigated and substantiated before the withdrawal of payment. The person who contacted me felt the accused should be informed in writing of the allegation and given the opportunity to respond before any such draconian action is taken. Surely this is the practice everywhere. Why are the most vulnerable on the margins of society treated in such a way by a public service which purports to help them? I felt extremely strongly about this case which involved the unannounced and unexplained suspension of a jobseeker's allowance. It was sorted out afterwards but we want to ensure it does not happen.

The Bill contains many provisions which the Labour Party supports, applauds and has fought for. The disregard of 50% of additional income for rent supplement purposes emanated from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs which I am proud to chair. It is an enlightened committee which brought forward a report on carers. We indicated that social welfare recipients should not be denied because of the stupid rule that one could not receive a second social welfare payment. It denied many, particularly widows and widowers who provided an important caring function within the home. Often a husband or wife was caring for an elderly father or aunt. Unfortunately, the husband might have died or been killed in an accident. When he was alive, his wife was in receipt of carer's allowance. However, as soon as he died, his wife, now in a vulnerable situation, lost not only the husband's wages but also lost carer's allowance because of this antiquated rule.

I salute the Minister for bringing forward this provision and look forward to a constructive debate on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context