Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)

I am well aware of that. If it is properly overseen and worked it is valuable. I have no objection to using electronics so long as it is done properly.

The Minister mentioned rent supplement charges and the fact that someone should have a tax certificate. This should have been part of legislation long ago. It is ridiculous that someone could have an income, through rent allowance, from the State and not have to show he is tax compliant. If someone applies to a local authority for a grant of €6,000 to add a bathroom to his house he must produce a tax clearance certificate for himself and a C2 for his builder. I completely support the Minister in introducing this measure. It is ridiculous that someone could take in €100 or more per week and not put it through the taxation system. That is unforgivable and unsustainable in the present situation. I was worried to hear the Minister say rent supplements would continue to be paid until the review date for the supplement. I would have thought the rent supplement should be stopped from the hour a person looks for a certificate. I accept that a balance must be maintained but the sooner these people are grappled with and dealt with the better. We cannot afford blackguarding of the tax system at present. I feel very strongly about this.

The Minister said the Bill will clarify the provisions for the calculation of the duration of payment of illness benefit claims. I am worried about this area. I know of a number of individuals with genuine medical problems who were asked to go for medical assessments and who were not even looked at by the doctor in charge. I know of a young girl who had been the victim of a bad accident. When she went with her mother for the assessment she was told the room was too cold and she should not take off her coat. She was later told she did not pass the examination. Who paid for that examination? Why was that girl not given the opportunity to show the damage she had suffered and what she had gone through for the previous 18 months? I know things are tight and people may be given to exaggeration, but that is not the only example I have come across where people were not given an examination of any kind by a doctor who was paid to do the job. There are other cases of refusals in which doctors letters are not even looked at. I am fully behind the Minister in trying to get rid of fraud but we must not take matters for granted and abuse the rights of people. People are entitled to care and fair play.

This leads me to the issue of appeals. The appeals system is completely unworkable. I tabled questions on two cases last week but was asked to withdraw them. One of the cases was referred to an appeals officer, who proposed to hold an oral appeal hearing. The officer stated, "Unfortunately, it is not possible to give a date and venue for the hearing but every effort is being made to have the appeal determined as quickly as possible". The individual in question, a young farmer with a wife and two infant children, sought help in June 2009. He was assessed and the Department refused to take into account the actual milk price at the time of the assessment. It insisted on taking into account his income from the previous year. I have in writing from the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Hanafin, former Minister of Social and Family affairs, documentation stating the Department was taking into account the incomes that were being earned at the time of assessment. In the case in question, however, this was ignored completely. The price of milk had fallen by 50% in 2009.

The average national farm income in that year showed a drop of 40% according to Teagasc. In Cavan-Monaghan and such areas, which have heavy, wet land and have extremely heavy rainfall at times, cattle had to be kept indoors during the months of May and June. As I still have a slight interest in the farm I live on, I know that meal bills were atrocious in 2009. The price of milk was unforgivable, yet this was not taken into account. I have encountered several cases similar to the one in question. The appeal in the case in question was submitted in December. We tried to proceed by way of review but reviews did not work. Still no date can be given for the appeal. The same applies to another case I have to hand.

Members are not tabling parliamentary questions on such matters for the sake of being awkward but because families are experiencing very real difficulties. Some are under more pressure than others from banks and their circumstances are extremely serious.

With regard to a case I was dealing with some days ago, the young lady of the house does some work outside the home. The calculations done in respect of her show that her income will increase massively due to what is describes as "the possible improvement" in the economy. The officers are not taking into account the factual position as it exists today. While this may not relate to the Bill, the Bill does refer to miscellaneous social welfare provisions. What I describe is not a joke.

Another case on my books concerns a man whose father dropped dead at the age of 50. The case had to go through the inheritance system. The Minister has some idea what it is like to deal with this. As a result of the man's circumstances, none of the farm grants, area aid payments or other benefits were paid to the family. The lump sum the man received helped to pay off the debt he had incurred but that was then considered as his actual income for the year in question. Arrears in payments from previous years were not taken into account. The list goes on. All I want is some common sense and reason. I fully believe the Minister wants to do his best but he must realise some control must be taken in this area.

I pay tribute to community welfare officers, who do an excellent job and do their very best in very difficult circumstances. They are under enormous pressure from all sides. They can help out in circumstances where people must wait for jobseeker's allowance or other such benefits but, in the cases to which I refer, it is much more difficult. They are asked to assess everything themselves. They must engage in the same assessment process as the social welfare officers.

I ask that some structure be put in place to deal with these cases in a reasonable manner that takes the facts into account. I could refer to non-farmers, including builders, who have lost their jobs. I genuinely believe the Minister means well but he must deal with the structural problems if ordinary people are to secure their rights.

When I meet IFA members from all over the country, they agree with me that the problems to which I refer exist but they do not seem to be prepared to raise them themselves. I do not know why this is the case.

See this speech in context