Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

When we look at legislation from the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, in the area of social welfare, we must look at what she has done since becoming Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection in this Government in latter times. We must ask the basic question, namely, whether she has been good or bad.

If she had been good, I would have been inclined to support this measure, but she has abandoned those whom she should protect; therefore, her record in the Department and as leader of the Labour Party is one of failure. Some of the Bill's amendments are welcome, but they do not change the overall picture of a Tánaiste with an abysmal track record that should be rejected out of hand. Anything that comes from her Department must be viewed in the light of what she has done since taking office.

As part of the 2012 Estimates process, the Tánaiste, with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, beside her, introduced cuts of €811 million for the most vulnerable. In the 2013 budget she cut €452 million from social welfare payments and in 2014, €372 million. The total cuts for people who needed money the most were €1.635 billion. I am not referring to a reduction in the social welfare budget. The number in receipt of jobseeker's allowance and other payments has reduced because the Government has forced so many people to emigrate, as well as other factors. The cuts of €1.635 billion are in addition to the savings accrued through fewer people making claims.

Many of the cuts affected lone parents and women, in particular. I have never seen any Minister attack women's benefits, entitlements and incomes so much year after year as the Tánaiste. She has cut them at every opportunity, camouflaging it with claims of aspirations to having a Scandinavian-type child care system and that everything will be rosy in the garden afterwards. She knows that we do not have such a system. As part of her electioneering last weekend, she spoke about a second free preschool year. She admitted that we did not have a Scandinavian-type system in place, yet she has proceeded with Angela Merkel-type cuts to social welfare payments.

I was intrigued by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform's comments on his party leader's announcement in this regard. On Sunday or at some point after the party conference he was asked on radio how much the changes would cost. He replied that they might cost €150 million and that the Government would have to determine how many hours were worked and what people were paid. They might even cost €300 million. He did not have a clue. He did not even know how well the single year system was working. He stated the Government would need to assess the benefits before adding a second year, yet the Tánaiste announced that she was proceeding with it anyway. An election is due within the next 12 months or so and the Tánaiste wanted to commence her electioneering at what was probably her last conference, but at least the Minister was less forthright in promising goodies that he could not cost. Thank God, we have such people. I do not often praise him and would criticise him at other times, but at least he had the decency to fudge the costs and benefits of a second year. We need extra child care services, but when a Tánaiste comes out with such proposals, we should be able to expect at least some detail instead of having them treated like an electioneering gimmick and headline.

I turn to the legislation and will change tack for one minute. On budget day last October I heavily criticised the choices announced, with the exception of one measure which the record will show I praised, namely, the work family dividend. Fianna Fáil's proposals which we produced a fortnight before the budget contained precisely the measure outlined in this legislation. People should be encouraged to return to work by allowing them to keep their child benefit payments. I am a little conflicted between having my measure implemented and supporting the Tánaiste. While the Bill has good aspects, including this measure, she must be given a fail mark on the legislation overall. I welcome this measure but reject everything else.

I will revert to the Tánaiste's track record in the Department of Social Protection. For a number of years, how cuts have been introduced to one-parent family and child benefit payments has been a theme on this side of the House. Maternity benefit was taxed for the first time. This was not done by the Tánaiste's Department, as it was a taxation measure, but it was another attempt by her to target expectant mothers and mothers with young children. That is what the Government has done time and again and, tragically, it is being done by a woman. People can draw their own conclusions from this.

I agree with some aspects of the Bill, including the work family dividend. I have not gone through the details of the explanatory note on the legislation, but my colleague, Deputy Willie O'Dea, did so yesterday. He will table a series of amendments when the Tánaiste or the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, takes Committee Stage. I have a few questions that might be answered in the course of the Minister of State's summation or on Committee Stage, but I will ask them and the answers can be given as soon as they can be given.

The Pyrite Resolution Board has been included in the list of bodies allowed to use PPS numbers. I understand the reason for this, but I have been contacted by individuals with pyrite problems that were so severe that they needed to repair the damage at their own expense. They are not covered by the board because they have already done the work. Some of the people involved are from my constituency of Laoighis-Offaly. They want to know whether there is any mechanism to address the issue of those who did the work without knowing about the Pyrite Resolution Board. Once the problem affected Dublin, action was taken in that area by the Minister, but some people beyond the M50 proceeded to fix the problems themselves. The work has been done, paid for and verified by engineers. The people concerned want to know whether they can be covered by the board. They would happily give their PPS numbers if required to allow them into the system. I tell them not to hold back in that regard.

I will address much of the Bill in more detail later, but I will speak to a number of issues now, including carer's allowance. The changes to the allowance are a cynical attack by the Tánaiste on the women of Ireland. From our own experience of dealing with people, we all know that 80% of those in receipt of carer's allowance are women. The Minister of State's Department would have the figures. Was the budget poverty proofed? It was certainly not gender proofed. I am reading the words and see that the Minister of State is consulting. This measure is being proposed to "clarify that eligibility for these schemes is determined by a deciding officer on the basis of all the information" available to him or her.

The Minister of State will say half of them could be men and half could be women but the majority of carers who receive the payment are women. If this allowance is not paid and the person is still providing the care, the carer will suffer the loss of income, not the beneficiary of the care. Over the past year I have witnessed the system becoming stricter. Doctors' letters and reports can be submitted. Is the deciding officer a medical officer? That is a simple matter of fact that can be established. I understand the GP marks the form in respect of the needs of the person and acknowledges whether the condition is mild, moderate, severe or profound. The forms are submitted to a medical assessor who forwards an opinion to a deciding officer. Up to now, there was a general understanding that if the medical assessor in the Department felt a payment should be made, it would be made. However, according to the Minister, in the interest of clarification, which means in the interest of cutbacks, the deciding officer will make the decision. It was possibly always the case but it is being provided for in this legislation to tighten up the system and to reduce the number of people who will be successful in their applications for carer's allowance. I suspect the number of people who have been refused as a proportion of the number who have applied has probably increased over the past number of years. I hope I am wrong and I hope the Minister of State can say what I have suggested is not what is behind this provision but as someone who meets constituents in my clinic and who has seen this form, I can only be suspicious of an amendment such as this. It will give power probably to an administrative official who has no medical background as the decision making authority on these claims. Hopefully, that can be clarified during the passage of the legislation.

People living in rarefied atmospheres believe Members should not do constituency work or work on behalf of individuals. The Minister of State, the Acting Chairman and I would be of the opposite opinion. It makes us better legislators if we know what is happening on the ground. I will reiterate that for the intelligentsia and those whose intellectual view is that we should be in a little cocoon in Leinster House far removed from ordinary people having lovely intellectual debates and passing legislation without knowing the impact on people on the ground. Everything I have said so far has been firmly based on information I have picked up on the ground as an experienced, practising Deputy and not on research, a library book or university. I do not knock the need to have scientific and authentic information to back up our decisions but it is important that we know what we are talking about when we are dealing with people's lives.

I am not sure what is being provided for in respect of the public services card. People can produce this card with a photograph on it in the post office. A previous speaker mentioned that some people because of various personal difficulties have a habit of not holding on to such identification. I was surprised recently when I was informed by someone in my constituency clinic that departmental officials are visiting old, sick people in their homes to take photographs of them in their bed for their new card. Could that be right? Will the Minister of State check that out? Provisions are in place requiring people to attend their social welfare office for the new public services card. I thank the Minister of State for the letter I received some time ago asking me to go to Portlaoise or Tullamore to have my photograph taken for my card, although I have not taken him up on the offer yet. I do not know if it was personal to me or whether every Member received one.

See this speech in context