Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

This was the advice we were told the Department received. I would have expected an Irish citizen who returns from the US or England to care for an elderly parent for just a few years to be able to claim carer's allowance. The habitual residence condition is being applied to these individuals because the argument is that if an entitlement were given to Irish citizens it would have to be given to all EU citizens. I find this difficult to accept and have asked for a note on the legal advice provided for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Will the Minister kindly remind his officials to provide that note for us?

Section 25(a) changes provisions relating to a person residing with a claimant who is not the qualified adult. This appears to represent a positive move to ease the means test for the claimant but I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on this.

Is the Minister aware of the financial contributions scheme? While not used much outside the Dublin area, it is used to very good effect in Dublin, particularly by Dublin City Council. An elderly couple on a small pension, living in local authority housing which they had purchased may need to renovate the house with a downstairs bathroom or bedroom, but existing grants or their income may not allow them to fully upgrade the house. The scheme involves the local authority buying back the house from the couple and making a contribution to them, obtaining a modern, good quality senior citizens' apartment. For the couple, they can move from their house, which they may not have been able to maintain, to new accommodation with excellent facilities. They also end up with a nice nest egg as they are allowed to keep the bulk of the proceeds of the sale. In return the local authority gets back family houses which it can do up to let. Everyone is a winner.

The scheme is a success and popular in areas such as Finglas. I recommend it to those Members whose local authorities may not operate it. However, the one difficulty with the scheme is that the Department of Social and Family Affairs cannot deal with those involved when it comes to means-tested allowances such as fuel allowance, and the HSE is not much better. Entitlement to a medical card or a nursing home subvention can be affected. Going by the book — the Social Welfare Act of the day — people involved in the scheme lose out on benefits. Many of those involved are in their 70s, 80s and 90s, an age when their benefits must be protected. Such a scheme has many benefits and can do away with the need for someone to go into a nursing home.

Greater flexibility must be shown by the Department in dealing with such cases and in the approach to providing services for older people. The person's requirements must be seen in their totality and not through a blinkered, departmental and demarcated approach. When I raised this with departmental officials, they either did not know of the scheme or, when I explained the circumstances, they claimed that as it was a means-tested payment there was nothing they could do. A more creative approach than that is needed.

I will table several amendments on Committee Stage to deal with the issues I have raised. I also propose to make it compulsory that every case where a deciding officer or job facilitator identifies a person whose financial circumstances would be better on welfare than in work should be reported to a principal officer, at least, in the Department. Some issues crop up on the ground and come to the attention of public representatives or deciding officers in local offices. A reporting mechanism should be in place to deal with such issues. Cases where officials find people who are clearly better off on welfare than in work should be reported to a policy unit.

See this speech in context