Dáil debates

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Social Welfare Bill 2016: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

8:50 pm

Photo of Michael MoynihanMichael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the Bill. I wish to address a number of issues on the social welfare side. There is a major backlog in respect of those applications to the Department of Social Protection that must be signed off on by someone from its medical office, for example, the carer's allowance, disability claims and invalidity payments. Let us consider the carer's allowance from a commonsensical perspective. It is applied for by family members who provide professional care in their homes for loved ones. Sometimes, they apply because they have taken leave from work. Other times, they must apply for it to sustain themselves because they have no entitlement to the carer's benefit. Deputies have already referred to the weeks and months it takes to get an application through the Department. If the case is simple but the financial issues are not in absolute compliance with the criteria and a medical assessment or someone signing off on same is awaited, it is per saecula saeculorum.

From the State's point of view, a cost-benefit analysis of a carer's allowance that is paid to a family member who cares for a relative in his or her own home compared with that relative being in full-time care with the State picking up the tab under the fair deal scheme would show a value for money that could not be quantified. This is just the financial aspect of the allowance. As to the social and well-being aspects of a patient being looked after at home when a carer's allowance is paid by the State, that person's quality of life and care is incomparable. It is high time that the Department was clear on this.

Other Deputies asked about the reason for the backlog.

Why is there such a delay? It is the same with many of the other applications going through the Department, including those for disability allowances and so forth. Obviously certain criteria must be met and no one wants to see the Department defrauded but the vast majority of those who apply for the carer's allowance do so in good faith. Of course there must be checks and balances but could somebody explain, before this debate concludes, why there is such a delay? If an application is made on 1 May but not granted until 1 August or even 1 December if it is the subject of a review, requiring additional information from medical practitioners, the payment is backdated to the date of the original application. Therefore, there is no financial benefit to the State in delaying the process. Is it that there is not a sufficient number of staff in the Department or is it down to a lack of urgency? Does the Department not recognise the fact that a carer's allowance which enables a person who is in need of full-time care to stay in his or her own home is far better than that person having to go into full-time residential care? Has the Department not grasped that simple fact? Often applications are refused on the basis that the person is not in need of full-time care. When applicants appeal, they nearly have to bring the care receiver to the hearing, who may be barely able to walk, in order to try to prove their case. That takes away the dignity of the person who requires the care and the person providing it. Clarification is required and an explanation should be given for the size of the backlog.

I wish to turn now to the issue of the domiciliary care allowance. In recent times, a line has come back from the Department to the effect that it does not dispute the fact that a child is in need of extra care because of a medical condition or a disability but that the care is not of a sufficient level to warrant receipt of the domiciliary care allowance. That is an awful line to put in a letter. I have met many parents in my constituency who have applied for the domiciliary care allowance, as have other Deputies in this House, and it is obvious that it has become extremely difficult to qualify for it. Somebody within the Department has tightened the criteria enormously from a medical point of view. Parents of children who need extra care above and beyond that required by a fully healthy child are constantly struggling to get the best possible services from the State. Every day they have a new struggle on their hands, whether it relates to occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and so forth. They are receiving letters telling them that the assessment waiting list is 18 months long and they are trying to pull money together to get private assessments done. They are under enormous pressure. Every parent wants the best for his or her child. Parents are increasingly frustrated with regard to the domiciliary care allowance. That frustration is also evident in parents who apply for the carer's allowance to provide care for their children. When was the qualifying criteria changed? The Department might point out that a certain percentage of applications are approved but there are far more people in need of the domiciliary care allowance than the numbers who are being approved for it.

There are also issues surrounding the respite care grant. While this is not directly linked to the Social Welfare Bill, there is an issue with people, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, getting respite care. The services of respite care providers have been cut, including those provided by St. Joseph's Foundation in Charleville, CoAction in west Cork, Kerry Parents and Friends Association or St. John of God. These services have been cut to the bone and there are constant reviews by the HSE in an attempt to realise further savings. Respite care providers are using money raised through various fundraising events like table quizzes and so forth. Such funds are being used to fill a gap being left by the State. The fundamental point I want to stress is that there is a problem with medical assessments in the Department and I would welcome an explanation for that.

I wish to turn now to the issue of PRSI contributions. In many of the constituency newsletters I have produced over the years I have included a note encouraging people in their 50s to check their PRSI records. The tightening of this area under the 2012 Act has made things more difficult and the averaging of contributions is penalising women in particular. There should be a mechanism in place so that when people reach the age of 55 they are automatically notified by the Department of their PRSI contributions record since they entered insurable employment so that people can make an informed decision on how to go forward. The S-class contribution for self-employed people must also be examined and changed.

Community Employment, CE, schemes have been of huge benefit to communities all over the country. They have also been hugely beneficial to those who have participated in them. However, a lot of CE supervisors and managers, when they began 20 or 25 years ago, expected to be paid a pension when they retired but they have found that none is available. They are only entitled to the State pension. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Catherine Byrne, met a number of sectoral interests today to discuss social inclusion and cohesion. When people reach 62 or 63, they are taken off CE schemes because of the rules and are left only with jobseeker's allowance. It is hugely difficult for them to find full-time mainstream employment. Allowance should be made within the CE schemes for such people. They are coming to the end of their working lives and if they want to stay on a CE scheme, which is contributing to their community as well to their own well-being, they should be allowed to do so.

I now wish to speak about Tús, the rural social schemes and farm assist. The relaxation of the rules with regard to the latter, particularly this year, are very welcome. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Deputy Andrew Doyle is in the House this evening and he is fully aware of the perfect storm that raged this year in terms of farm incomes. All sectors were affected including sheep, beef and dairy, while our tillage farmers had an horrendous harvest on the back of already reduced incomes.

The change in the criteria is very welcome but there needs to be further change because the rural social scheme and the farm assist scheme in particular keep families, including young families, in rural communities and maintain their income level in such a way as to provide for their families in a proper way. We need to look at that and make sure it is really being targeted.

The Tús scheme came out a number of years ago. Some people would ask what difference is there between the Tús scheme and the community employment scheme and whether the two of them should be working in tandem or as one. Fifteen years ago, there was a major effort to change the community employment scheme into a labour activation scheme. There is significant room in respect of Tús and the rural social scheme. By and large, the dignity of the participants has been upheld on the community employment schemes. It is vitally important that when people leave a Tús scheme or the rural social scheme, they believe they have bettered themselves in a way that will benefit them, their families and society. The Department should look at that, cast a critical eye over Tús and other schemes and make sure the participants really believe in it and have a sense of dignity coming off it.

In respect of where we go with social welfare, people out there will say that too much social welfare is being paid. We must accept that 15% of this society is not engaged in society at all, finds it very difficult to get engaged in society, depends on payments for their entire living and that possibly two or three generations are involved. We have many challenges relating to the money side. We need funds for a raft of issues such as the health service, the trolley issue, the needs of the Department of Education and Science and pay. What the most vulnerable people - the least well off - need more than anything else is hope. We have seen families where two or three generations have been outside the workforce. You see some of them getting back into it and the pride it has brought back into those families, particularly over the past number of years. We must develop policies because 75% of society will be able to look after itself in the best way possible and if we have a balanced and caring society, that will pick them up but there are people who feel completely alienated from society regardless of whether it is school, communities, sport, drama or anything else. We must be as radical as Donogh O'Malley was in the 1960s when he brought in free education. He brought in a raft of people who increased the worth of society on a massive scale and benefitted their families and communities in a major way. We must tackle that issue. There are parts of Dublin and every city, small town and village where a certain cohort finds it very difficult and is becoming more and more marginalised. There has been a lot of work done in respect of resource and community centres and trying to get people on to various schemes. I visited one of the resource centres in Dublin this morning to try to resolve an issue for somebody. I looked at the cross-section of people who came in. I was there for the bones of an hour and a half doing some transactions for people. They were all vulnerable people such as young mothers with children trying to access services, elderly and frail people and people with different health issues. Some people would say "God helps those who help themselves" and that kind of nonsensical rubbish but I do think we must become more caring and make sure these people are brought along with it.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me a good few minutes to speak on the Social Welfare Bill 2016. The number one issue for me is that all schemes that require medical certification when they go into the Department need to be hurried up. It is simply not acceptable to think that someone has to wait 16 weeks for the carer's allowance with all the benefits to the State and the human being needing care that follows from the carer's allowance. It is not good enough in this day and age. Could the Department or Minister clarify the reason for this before this debate concludes tomorrow? Other issues include the expansion of the community employment schemes, the rural social scheme, Tús and the issue of PRSI. The way women in particular have been treated in respect of averaging is grossly unfair but other people are affected as well. People come with records. I know of some people who would have worked very early in their lives, particularly from a farming point of view, in sugar factories and elsewhere and would have gone on to have no contributions while they worked the farm until the compulsory contributions were introduced in 1988. They would be outside any State pension whatsoever because of having worked part-time in the early 1950s even though they have PRSI contributions paid. Many people would have paid PRSI but would be outside it because of their 56th birthday. Could the Minister come back into the House and clarify what is the policy in respect of medical certification by the chief medical officer in the Department before we conclude this debate?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.