Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I listened with interest to Deputy McGuinness's contribution. I agree with him regarding the issues affecting our society that need to be addressed. Obviously, I would not agree with all the prescriptions he offered but I concur with him that the need to care for people who are less well off, who are ill or who have families must be central to our society. That is what the Government is trying to do with this Bill, particularly in the context of the increase in child benefit. Notwithstanding the fact that the amount of money involved will be small, this is the first occasion in a significant number of years that support for families and children will be increased. That is a good start. The living alone allowance will also be increased and the Christmas bonus will be paid at a rate of 25%. We are not yet in a position to restore the bonus in its entirety but we are certainly making a move in the right direction. When we entered office three years ago, the unemployment rate stood at 15.3%. It has now fallen to 11%. As more people return to work and find themselves in a position to better sustain their families, it is only right that whatever money is available be used to support those who are unemployed to return to work also. We must support and encourage those who are less well off than us. In the context of democracy, that is the proper route to take.

Members of different political parties on the Opposition side of the House often complain about our social welfare system. I accept that it has many faults.

However, it is not at fault in the sense that it is a better system than the one in the North. Notwithstanding the concerns of older people, they are better off in the South than in the North, and our support systems are better.

I have always said, both in opposition and in government, that the Department of Social Protection is the most efficient Department I have encountered. When I was sitting in the seat now occupied by the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, he had some nice things to say about me so I will start with him today. His Department is important and very responsive, accountable and focused. I was recently invited to the Department's local office to see the changes it is bringing about to help the unemployed, encourage them to come in for an interview and have their CVs examined, and determine how to encourage them to get a new qualification, perhaps in an area they never thought about. It is a question of the joining up of social elements and working out what is best for the people by changing. We must all change and help to bring about that change. It is a case of providing new resources in a respectful way.

I do not know whether the Minister of State remembers the day of the hatch. I remember people going to the hatch to do their business. I very much objected to that. Now one is interviewed while sitting down in a private space, and one can communicate with the officials. That is how it should be. Notwithstanding that, there are serious delays in the system.

I agree that appeals times are far too long. One can apply for a review, and I acknowledge that the Department accepts new information given to it at any stage, even if the relevant date has passed by. The Department is available to listen to one's case, read the relevant documentation and make judgments and changes when one can show they would benefit those concerned.

My staff recently brought to my attention the fact that people on long-term illness benefit cannot get the fuel allowance. My office and constituents believe this needs to be reviewed. If one is on long-term illness benefit, one should benefit from the fuel allowance. That one cannot do so is an anomaly.

A good aspect of the current reforms is the housing assistance payment to people who are looking for housing. The system in this regard is administered through the local authority. I welcome the payment because this is the first time that constituents working for a very low income can and will be considered for increased financial supports. That is a very positive move because the transition from unemployment to work is very difficult for families. If they can get financial support, which was previously unavailable to them, this will be very welcome.

The question of carers has been raised by other speakers, with whom I agree. The means testing of carers takes a long time. Many of the cases are complex and may not be as simple as we might think at times. However, more resources need to be made available to deal with the applications. It would make a fundamental difference to those being cared for, their families and carers. A significant reduction in the delays is very important.

The Department may not have a role in respect of all my views on the role of the community welfare officer. The community welfare officer system is excellent. The training, skills and knowledge of community welfare officers, which they clearly demonstrate throughout the country, including in my county, are top class and excellent in every way. I work with community welfare officers every week. A big mistake that has been made is the centralisation of the medical card application system, which resulted in an appalling debacle. When responsibility for applications was removed from the local community welfare office and transferred to some place in Dublin, or wherever it is, it was a bad day for every applicant. The community welfare officer had the necessary skills, knowledge and communication ability, and knew the applicants and their families. The officers were always available to listen to applicants' cases. We all know that it is not a question of making a black-and-white decision in the health system. There are grey areas in that although people may have more money theoretically than they are allowed to have, there can be extenuating circumstances that a community welfare officer would be in a position to judge. Not accounting for such circumstances is the major downside of the administrative decision to centralise the system. It has made it unacceptable to people. When I get on to the medical card authorities, I do not have a problem, but some of my colleagues tell me one can raise no more than three cases per day. I do not receive this complaint about the number of cases I raise but, if I did, I would not accept it from the officer. If the complaint is made, some policy needs to change. I fundamentally believe that getting back to basics and returning to the concept of the community welfare officer is important.

The system for allocating grants to people with disabilities who need to make adjustments to their homes to allow for independent living was the responsibility of the former health boards and is now the responsibility of the local authorities. There needs to be much more flexibility. There is far too much black-and-white thinking in this regard. A simple sit-down shower in somebody's home would make a great difference to one's quality of life. It just seems impossible to get it in many cases. We need an urgent review of the system. It is not necessarily the remit of the Minister of State but it is part of the process of caring for people in their homes to which we need to return.

I welcome the legislation and the changes that are being made. The legislation is a start. It is easy to be critical and say it is not enough. Of course, it is not enough; it will never be enough but at least there is social change and we are giving an opportunity to the less well-off, unemployed, those with young children and those living alone to have better quality of life. The change is small but it will be significant. As our economy improves, I hope we will increase the amount of money to which people are entitled to live out their lives in a proper way. As the awful, appalling misery that was visited upon the State by the previous Government fades into the background, quality of life will improve for everybody.

See this speech in context