Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I think there are only two of us.

There has been a lack of trust in politics. Part of the reason for that is that what is said does not match the reality in people's lives. They can see that very well. Terms like "protecting the core rates of social welfare" are used. The core rates were protected, but many things were lost, for example, in the case of pensioners there were losses of things like the telephone allowance, the electricity allowance and things like that, which did matter for people's income. People know that the language of Government is different from their reality. The one type of legislation I will always examine in an almost forensic manner, is legislation coming from the Department of Social Protection, because it is, by a mile, the worst offender. I am not referring to the Department itself, rather to the Minister. I regret that this is coming from the Labour Party. This Bill comes at the time of the mantra, "the age of austerity is over". There were good numbers yesterday in terms of tax take. That is to be welcomed, but when it comes to redistribution, it appears that will be on the tax side rather than on the investment in services side.

There are two particular elements in this Bill, which is presented as a family dividend. That presents it in a very positive light. When it comes to July, it will not be at all positive for those who will be losing a great deal of money, for example, if a person has a seven year old and does not happen to have a family member who can support them. There is a presumption that everybody has family members to support them. The stereotype that was presented in the Minister's speech last night of the age cohort that constitutes lone parents does not mirror the reality. It goes across a wide age range. What does one do with a seven year old if one has no option but to go to work? What does one do if one does not have family to fall back on? The €29.80 per child per week works out at about €120 or €130 per month. Child care costs about €800 to €1,000 per month.

There is little in the way of community child care services. They are patchy.

Let us consider what happened in Britain. One need not look at the Scandinavian model. Like many others, I was in the Chamber when the Tánaiste asserted that this change would not happen until child care services were in place. She could not have been more categoric. In Britain the Labour Party's sister party used several clever approaches to support lone parents in returning to work while providing child care services. Many were offered places on accredited child care training programmes, effectively creating a child care workforce. The UK Government provided tax credits in respect of child care costs. It used EU money, a fund that was open to Ireland but not availed of by us, to send people on employability courses. It was called the Train to Gain programme. Although some of it has, unfortunately, been rolled back and significantly restricted by the Conservative Party, one would have expected a similarly progressive approach to be adopted by the Government.

For some, there are many poverty traps that do not just make work unattractive but unaffordable. It is not only a question of child care provision, although that is the major one. If one works more than a certain number of hours, one loses rent assistance and the housing assistance payment, HAP, has not been rolled out everywhere. The Minister of State knows all of this. That is why it is so difficult to fathom why this change is proceeding. While Deputies will not want to vote against the family dividend, it will reinforce the policy of returning people to work when their children reach seven years of age. For that reason, I cannot support it. If a seven year old was left at home on his or her own, the HSE would be sent in and the child taken away from the parent, rightly so, because he or she would be too young to care for himself or herself. If someone does not have family to rely on or money, what is he or she to do?

My second concern about the legislation relates to an issue that smacks of the same redefinition that occurred in the case of special needs assistants, SNAs, where the reclassification meant reduced numbers and the work being done was subsequently deemed to be minimal. I am referring to the redefinition of those who are considered to be in need of full-time care. It appears that the Bill will tighten the definition. Such issues can be complicated and every one is unique. My fear is that there will be wholesale refusals. I am not talking about armageddon, but wholesale refusals are typical in other contexts.

It is alarming that the decision has been moved from the medical assessor. The Department has had a difficulty in retaining medical assessors. I have asked numerous parliamentary questions on this matter. The new deciding officer will essentially be an administrator who will second guess the letters of proof for which people have paid consultants and the like. Applications will be refused by people who do not have the medical qualifications to make such judgments. Moves such as this can be found throughout the changes made by the Department of Social Protection. Wherever there is a long-term obligation, the Department tries to determine whether an application can be refused or changes the rules to refuse it. I realise that, although matters are improving, money is still tight, but there is a presumption of refusal now rather than of entitlement. Often, people suddenly find themselves acting as carers. They must leave work and getting decisions is difficult, even though they need them quickly. If they are to be refused wholesale, the decision-making process will be stretched. Invariably, judgments favour those who appeal. As such, we should be concerned about making this change, which I cannot support.

The legislation could have done a great deal more to roll back on certain measures. Recently, I spoke to a young woman who had left care at the age of 18 years to live with a parent. Her parent died within months, something that had formed part of the reason she was in care. She is entitled to €100 per week. It is difficult to get one's head around this next point, but her income is too low to enable her to qualify for a medical card. It is not the first time that I have encountered such a case. When a constituent contacted me previously about getting his property tax deducted from his social welfare payments, the Department of Social Protection told me that it could not do so because he would have found himself below a level that would have been insufficient on which to live. Anomalies such as these show what can occur in a system that has been designed like ours. The Government's approach to lone parents will have long-term consequences because families will have to struggle with poverty and do without if they are to look after their children. When the effect on children is known, people will ask who made the decision. Unfortunately, it is the party that they believed would protect them in government.

See this speech in context