Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, which gives legislative effect to a range of social welfare measures announced in the budget. It is important that I mention homemakers. These women have stayed at home to care for their children. While the homemaker's scheme introduced in 1994 went a long way to increasing the rights of homemakers by making it easier for them to qualify for contributory State pension, a generation of women have still been forgotten. A group of women are in limbo and have been actively discriminated against by the introduction of the homemaker's scheme. It is an issue I raised immediately after my election and I have continued to do so since.

Earlier the Minister said the Department wrote to some of these women last week and will write to more of them this week. I strongly believe that every woman who stayed in the home to care for her children should not suffer a loss in their pensions and they should be compensated. The Fine Gael-Labour Government caused much distress to women and it is imperative that the Government writes to every one of these women without delay.

I cannot go on without mentioning carers who provide more than 6.5 million hours of care each week in Ireland. They care for their loved ones for almost the equivalent of a full 40-hour working week. Almost 9% provide 24-hour unpaid care, with no break at all. Carers are waiting months from the time they apply to receive payments. It is outrageous as, in many cases, the carer has given up employment to care for a loved one, yet they are expected to survive on nothing until their payments come through. It is clear as day that this is not feasible for any carer. It must be the case that on the first day that it is proven, with medical evidence, that a loved one requires care, a social welfare payment should be made to the carer. That would cut out entirely the shambolic carry-on of leaving a carer five, six or seven months without any payment, something which is nothing short of outrageous.

I realised something only recently that the Minister might look into. There could be a situation where a mother is looking after a very sick child and the child ends up in hospital.

Thirteen weeks might seem a long time for a child to be in hospital but that happens in some cases the child may be there even longer. In most cases, the parent stays with the child throughout that time but he or she, whoever is the carer, will lose his or her carer's allowance after 13 weeks and if the child is discharged, he or she must reapply for it. That is very cold and callous. Surely medical evidence can be brought into play to ensure that is no longer the case. People are in extremely difficult circumstances if they are at the bedside of a loved one for 13 weeks but for them to lose their carer's allowance and perhaps reapply for it is very unfair.

In December 2017, I and my colleagues in the Rural Independent Group tabled a motion on home care packages. In that motion we called for a home care package scheme to be established in law to allow everyone an automatic right to the service under the scheme. We are still waiting. I met a man in my constituency whose elderly mother was unable to avail of any home care despite her age and frail demeanour. That person requires constant care and her family are only able to provide so much. They were refused any home help hours. That is a disgrace and appalling treatment of an elderly person who deserves more from our State.

Regardless of the way this Government devises the budget, we still see that old age pensioners are left scrambling for pennies having worked all their lives and having paid taxes in this country. Those people believe they have been forgotten and rejected by the Minister as well as by the previous Government.

I was approached recently by a constituent of mine who sadly lost her husband and is suffering following that bereavement. For any widow, it is an extremely difficult time and no widow should have to suffer undue stress. It has come to my attention that a widow on a contributory State pension is not entitled to the six week payment but if that person was on a non-contributory pension, they would be entitled to the six week payment after the death of a spouse. I understand that has always been the rule but the guidelines around the rule were highlighted recently to social welfare staff in a bid to tighten them up. This is a rule about which there may have been some leniency in the past. I argue that all widows should be entitled to this six week payment regardless of whether they have a contributory or non-contributory pension. We need to support widows in what is a terrible time in their lives and we need to make their lives as stress-free as possible. They lost the death, or bereavement, grant. This is the only little bit of compensation they have to try to get their lives back to some level of normality. It reminds me of a Minister in a previous government who said they would follow people to the grave. The Government seems to be going about that in a professional way.

Since August of this year, there has been a constant footfall through my door of very distressed constituents who are affected negatively by the change in regard to illness benefit. It changed recently to a new online GP certification system that was introduced without adequate consultation with GPs and which, in turn, left thousands of people on illness benefit without payments for weeks on end. When they eventually got paid, their payment amounts were irregular and they were underpaid. That is an absolute disgrace. People were coming into my office in despair, crying and stressed out, as they had no money in their bank accounts to pay their bills. Some even had direct debits rejected, which, in turn, cost them money in the form of a penalty from the bank. That should never have happened. The Government owes more than just a simple apology to those people.

It is important to mention a point I raised following the last budget because it is clear to me that I am not being listened to. School children over the age of 18 and their parents receive no assistance from the State. Second level education is very expensive and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance does not extend far enough to cover the year-long costs older students face, especially as many of them may need additional classes or grinds in the leaving certificate cycle. We need to invest in the children of today as they are the future.

I raise another important matter raised with me on several occasions by many people, namely, the community employment, CE, and the Tús schemes. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are on these schemes. They are happy to be on them because it gets them back to work and, from that, they may get further employment. As the Minister is aware, they get €22.50 a week onto their payments while on these schemes. That is very little for someone who is willing to go out and work hard. They deserve a far bigger reward to encourage them to stay working. I wrote to the Minister in July asking her to consider raising the €22.50 social welfare payment in the budget as it is not sufficient in the current economic climate when one considers the extra costs such as travel costs, etc., people on these schemes incur. I welcome the fact the budget provided that from March next year, social welfare payments will increase by a maximum of €5, which includes the payments under the CE and Tús schemes. However, the people on those schemes, who are willing to travel to work, and God knows they do brilliant work in their community such as doing meals on wheels or working on the local Tidy Towns association or community council, deserve much more than they are getting. This has been an issue for some time; it is not something that started yesterday morning.

I dare not start talking about Turas Nua because the issues with it will be the subject of an inquiry this country will face in the future because the way people are treated is nothing short of appalling. I am aware of one man living on an island who was told he had an appointment at a certain time in the morning but the ferry did not leave on time. He would have had to swim to make the appointment with Turas Nua but what did it do? It cut his welfare. He was making a 26 mile journey. He was trying to make his way from an island but there was no understanding or consideration shown to him.

I know another gentleman who did a year with Turas Nua only to be told how to shower. That is appalling in this day and age, but, of course, it docks the figures for welfare so it looks good. We have to look into that scheme. The Minister has stood idly by and accepted it as being a solution but I do not accept it as being one.

See this speech in context