Dáil debates

Wednesday, 21 February 2007

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2007: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)

In my brief contribution last night I referred to the provision in the Bill to transfer community welfare officers, CWOs, from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. In effect, this changes them from public to civil servants. The CWOs are concerned by the proposal. My concern is that the transfer is being made without due discussion or consideration and we could end up with a debacle like that in the health service as a result of the too rapid and badly organised transition from health boards to the Health Service Executive. That over rapid changeover is one of the reasons we have chaos in health services throughout the country and people do not fully understand their role.

The CWOs are concerned by the proposal, which I understand was written specifically as a result of the recent public partnership agreement. It could undermine the quality and range of services community welfare officers provide to some of the most vulnerable people in communities across the country. As the Minister knows, community welfare officers play an essential role in the community. As well as making welfare payments, they provide key information, advice, advocacy and referral links to statutory health and personal social services. Their knowledge of the Department of Health and Children, as well as of social welfare services, is essential to their role.

The ability of CWOs to make emergency payments is essential to provide for weaker and more vulnerable sections of the community. They provide an essential and delicate function to a sensitive area and group in society. Any change to their role, functions and powers will adversely affect weaker sections of the community and people sensitive to changes in income or support. These people live from day to day and from week to week and never really know what food will be on the table in a week's time. Their future is uncertain. Unfortunately, we still have people in society living like this, but with the support of CWOs they have some assurance that if they are unable to put a meal on the table for their families, provide fuel or pay a bill, they can get assistance.

The proposal hits at the most vulnerable in society and will have an adverse effect on the people for whom CWOs provide. There has been a lack of consultation on the proposal which seems to have been decided by administrative officers in the Departments of Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs, without any real in-depth look at the impact it will have in practice. The community welfare service sits more appropriately with the Department of Health and Children as it links into the care strategies provided by that Department. For example, vulnerable groups include addicts, people with mental health issues, people with disabilities, single parents, victims of abuse, the elderly, those with chronic anti-social behaviour and those with psychological issues. In view of this, it is more appropriate that CWOs stay with the Department of Health and Children.

The difference of approach in the Department of Social and Family Affairs with regard to proving the right to a claim is totally opposite to the ethos in the Department of Health and Children and will cause problems if the community welfare services are subsumed into that Department. This is something the Minister should address in his response to the genuine questions raised. We all know the valuable work CWOs do and the important service they provide for the poorer section of our community.

Another issue is that of contributory pension. A woman came to my clinic recently and pointed out that in the early 1950s she did voluntary work for five weeks in a hairdressing salon and the hairdresser in question paid a stamp for her. When this woman applied for her pension, she was granted a reduced pension because that contribution was on the record. That is unfair and demonstrates an anomaly in the system which should be rectified. I ask the Minister to respond to that in his reply.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.