John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I support the Bill. It will allow the State to provide a considerable amount of money right across the various payments being made to customers of the Department and to provide for the administration of the Department. However, I have a couple of issues. One relates to various applications where the customer has an account with Revolut or any other of the fintech companies. I recently assisted a constituent who had been asked to explain every single payment made in their Revolut account. I am not singling out Revolut and this is not a negative for the company. The point relates to all the fintech companies. Most family members pay money one to the other. That is the way things operate. They are able to save using that piece of technology and it is a great tool for them to manage their finances. My constituent was asked about every payment and had to submit a 26-page explanation as to what was spent in their Revolut account. In the end, it all hung on a payment of €3.30. My constituent had to submit an explanation as to what that payment was about. That is administration gone a little wrong. Perhaps it needs to be explained more to the staff who are dealing with those applications. I ask the Minister to take note of that. It is not an isolated case.

I also dealt with a young man who was applying for a disability payment. He was asked about a Revolut payment of €50 that happened to be from his dad to cover the cost of groceries because he does not have any money. He had a serious accident. This issue cropped up with his Revolut account. Unfortunately, he was unable to pay his phone bill and was, therefore, unable to access the statements from Revolut. It was all about a payment of €50. As a result, his application is now stalled in the Department.

I do not raise these cases to embarrass the Minister in any way. I raise them to explain that life and living, and the management of household funds, have changed considerably. Therefore, we need to take recognition of that fact into account.

I also want to mention an issue relating to the domiciliary care allowance which crops up a lot. Explanations are required as to the different care a parent provides for one child as distinct from another member of his or her family, or another child who demands only regular input.

I have seen where diaries have been provided explaining what is required in great detail and explaining the differences, pages and pages of it, only for the application to be refused again. Were you to look at the medical reports – I know it is not based on that but the other – you would be able to say from them that this child requires a hell of a lot more. The level of proof in that particular payment needs to be looked at because more often than not, the family is making the application because they are already under pressure. Adding further pressure in terms of the paperwork and what is required when a certain level of paperwork has already been given is unfair. It is unfair to put them through all the hassle they have to go through for this.

I have just come from a meeting of the finance committee where we were dealing with Estimates. It was noted that the heating costs in one Department had gone up by 70%. I think we have to be much more generous in the support we give to families that are under pressure but particularly older people. I would like to see older people getting far greater supports. It might be an elderly couple or, perhaps, an individual older person living on their own. They definitely need the supports and they need to be increased. My point about the Department is that this is proof, if proof is needed, although we know from the utility companies by how much these bills for energy costs have gone up. These are significant increases and 70% is a big figure. I am sure there is a way to relate that to household increases and so on. We need to look at that and to give support.

I am concerned that because of the tax code, those with a State contributory pension and perhaps a work pension are being put into a position where they might be less well off because of the increases they receive, in terms of their social welfare payments, by a small margin. Consequently, they will be at a loss to a bigger margin in terms of their overall payment. It is a tax relief to older people that has not been adjusted for perhaps ten years. I have spoken to the Minister for Finance about it. It is an example of where the Department could work directly with the Department of Finance, examine what is happening in that and adjust the social welfare payment or make the kind of adjustment that will make them better off rather than worse off.

Overall, the Bill is exceptional in terms of the amount allocated. I have listened carefully to the Minister in terms of reforms to be introduced. It is a good step and one of many steps she has taken forward. I wish her well with the reform package.

Deputy Naughten mentioned making it attractive to go to work while at the same time supporting someone at home. We have to ensure that people are better off working.

See this speech in context