Dáil debates

Wednesday, 6 December 2017

Social Welfare Bill 2017: Report and Final Stages

 

6:45 pm

Photo of Tommy BroughanTommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have done precisely that without success. That is the reason I tabled the amendment. The Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, told me, when I raised it with her on 7 November, as the Minister of State has repeated here, that the legislation does not confer a statutory right or entitlement and that, "The principal consideration in making a payment under the ENP scheme is to address a particular once-off and exceptional need which is not of an expected or recurring nature and is therefore unforeseen." I would contend that the unforeseen aspect of it is illegal. We did not put that in primary legislation. I cannot recall who was Minister in 2005. That was not the intention.

A primary consideration down through the years with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection's budget has always been keeping it inside €19 billion or €20 billion, even though we provide half of that budget through our social insurance payments. Especially in any kind of assistance payments, the funding is a significant consideration. The exceptional needs scheme is being further restricted at a time when it is needed more than ever when there are such crises affecting families.

The Minister of State mentioned, as the Minister stressed on 7 November last, that there is this discretionary power available. Many believe the quasi-judicial powers that the Department has relating to appeals etc. should be placed on a statutory basis. When I was a spokesman on social protection, that was something I tried to bring forward. The significant discretion and quasi-judicial power that officers have, that is set out in legislation but also expanded on in guidelines, can be very unfair.

It is regrettable that the Department does not keep statistics on the applications overall. It would be a useful database for the CSO and for society generally.

The key point is that the Minister is misusing the 2005 Act by adding a key legislative provision, namely, this idea of being unforeseen which was not in the legislation, which was not intended, which is new, and which this House should legislate for. I would like to legislate that it not be in the Act and that the unforeseen idea be excluded.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.