David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

There are two issues involved in these amendments and I am unclear as to why they are being taken together. Deputy Penrose has comprehensively addressed the first issue, regarding, if one likes, a form of social engineering. The Deputy outlined the matter well. As I understand it those in receipt of rent supplement will be barred from living in areas designated for urban regeneration. Why did the Minister decide to pick on people in receipt of rent supplement? It will preclude in law existing welfare-dependent families and individuals in areas designated for urban regeneration from claiming rent supplement. What is so special about areas of regeneration that those in receipt of rent supplement cannot live there? The provision would allow a legal basis to refuse rent supplement to new applicants in designated areas of regeneration and provides a basis to discriminate between categories of people who may require assistance towards the cost of their rent. I wonder whether the provision is even constitutional. Perhaps Deputy Penrose, wearing his other hat, might advise us in that regard. It appears highly discriminatory and would mean that a person in a designated area of regeneration who is already dependent on social welfare and wishes to apply for rent supplement would be denied assistance while a person who is working and becomes unemployed may receive rent supplement to live in the same area. It does not make sense.

We all agree that social integration is a positive objective. What is proposed here would serve to deprive the most vulnerable in our society from essential income support and the right to chose to live in certain areas. If the section is enacted a person who needs support with rental costs will be required first to find affordable accommodation and will then need to obtain a map of the areas of regeneration from which they are excluded by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. If they want to live in such areas they will be unable to apply for rent supplement, which is bizarre.

On the second issue addressed in this group of amendments, amendment No. 23 proposes in page 23, to delete line 52. This would amend the principal Act as indicated in Schedule 1. Essentially it would delete Schedule 1. That highly controversial schedule provides for the transfer of the community welfare service from the HSE to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I know the Minister will argue that this has been proposed by many groups for some time. However, the people who are central to this issue, the community welfare officers, have not been adequately consulted. They provide a very personal service that has developed over time. I am sure that the Minister will claim that nothing will change following the move. However, why does it need to be rushed?

I accept the Minister is good at having what he calls big meetings and talking with people. Why would he not sit down with the community welfare officers and the superintendents of the service, thrash out the requirements with them, reach an agreement and then proceed with the change? The Minister is proposing to introduce this so-called enabling legislation, and then to sit down and talk with them. If those discussions identify a problem and a change is required, we would need to return here to change primary legislation. It would be far more sensible to hold the meetings first, reach an agreement and then if it is to happen introduce the legislation. The community welfare officers are quite worried about the matter and feel very strongly about not having been consulted. There are approximately 1,000 people working there and 100,000 or more are in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that figure. Those using the service provided directly by the HSE, including domiciliary care allowance, are affected. The Government's justification for transferring the functions involved in an organisational arrangement allowing the HSE to focus on co-responsibilities may be right but why rush it now? Why not consult, reach agreement and then do it? We would all be happy moving forward together. Often those who are or should be helped by community welfare officers are under considerable pressure and the assistance they receive is a safety net. There is a concern that this issue might change. It may be that the whole service needs to be looked at and there may be areas that require to be changed. There may be other functions that community welfare officers should perform. There is no need to do this right now and the issue has raised concerns among the excellent community welfare officers around the country.

Welfare officers often build important relationships with welfare recipients. It is crucial to acknowledge, as I said on Committee Stage, that this issue is not just a question of money. They offer personal support by listening. They are more like councillors or advocates in some areas. They go to the client rather than the other way round. They link in with other services in the health sector such as the psychiatric, psychological, public health nurse services and fear that link could be broken if responsibility is transferred from the HSE to the Department and that the officers will become mere financial administrators. Their role is much greater than this and community welfare officers believe the proposed move reflects a lack of understanding of the type of service they offer. They believe a transfer would have a profound adverse affect on the service and would ultimately undermine the quality and range of services they provide to the detriment of some of the most vulnerable citizens.

The first time their union was given an opportunity to debate this matter was last June in the committee. There has been no public debate on the issue and community welfare officers have not been properly consulted by Departments to date. The officers fear the Department will not continue to resource the functions for which it is not ultimately responsible. They believe their ability to make discretionary payments will be undermined. We should enhance their power to make such payments.

We have all come across cases where this is useful. Many Deputies must telephone the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to obtain help for constituents because there is no other body that can help. Community welfare officers should fulfil this role to a greater extent. Their role is important and has developed over the years. They are worried and have asked us to bring their concerns to the floor of the House. We have done that on Committee Stage and again today on Report Stage. I ask the Minister to put this issue on the back burner until he has debated it with the people on the ground. It may well be that they will agree to move forward but I do not understand why this has not happened to date.

See this speech in context