Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

"1.—The Minister shall within 6 months from after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the effect and operation of means tests overall in the social welfare system and in particular in relation to the carer's allowance.".

There has been much debate in recent times as regards the system operated by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is worthwhile at this stage to look at how various schemes are being administered. The Minister made an important announcement this week that has to be welcomed. Nonetheless, we need to look at the procedures and methods in place that deal with issues which may not necessarily have arisen when the methods now being used by the Department were first introduced.

A particular case has come to my attention recently concerning someone with a low-level literacy standard who cannot work or seek employment on grounds of ill-health. This a person who is unable to speak up for himself, and except for the benevolence of a neighbour, would be left behind by a system not designed to deal with such a specific case. This is a case involving someone running a very small unprofitable farm who has applied for a payment but whose debts incurred are increasing rapidly year by year. A credit system is operated by the local creamery. The individual reached a point where he was physically no longer able to work and applied for a payment or award of €28 per week.

The nine cows on the 50-acre farm were got rid of while the majority of the acreage is mountainy and of no benefit to the owner. This has been calculated against the individual in question to whom a reduced payment of €28 per week has been issued.

The person in question qualifies for a medical card and has a cancerous lump on his neck. He is driven to Cork University Hospital three times per week by his brother who qualifies for a social welfare payment. This person does not have enough money to buy food or pay bills. The quality of life, or lack thereof, that this person must endure is a throwback to a bygone era. The failure of the system in this case highlights that it is not designed to cater for individuals who find themselves in circumstances of this kind. Any Christian who examined the case would accept its merits given the dire conditions, poverty and deteriorating health with which the person in question must live. It is not good enough that the system does not provide for specific needs such as those outlined. It must be overhauled.

This is only one of many cases I have encountered in recent times. On previous occasions, I brought to the attention of the Minister another case involving a person whose application for a social welfare payment was refused. This is an important case because it is not isolated. I am certain it is replicated across the country because the circumstances I will describe extend beyond geographical boundaries. The person in question suffered from severe depression and was advised, when the depression eventually began to lift, to apply for a social welfare payment. The person had previously worked and paid PRSI contributions and always made a significant contribution to the State. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the illness, the person was not in a position to make an application for a social welfare payment.

The applicant was initially informed that the level of contributions made was insufficient to qualify for a social welfare payment. The person then applied for invalidity benefit and allowance but was refused a second time. The person was called to attend a doctor and should have been treated with humanity. The doctor was not personable, however, and did not assist the applicant who was in the throes of trying to defeat depression. Following this rigmarole, a payment was refused and the applicant did not appeal the decision. This is not a unique case but to be fair to the Minister, he took a personal interest in it and I appreciate the correspondence I received on the matter from his private office.

It is unacceptable that a person who experiences an illness such as depression will fail under our archaic system to qualify for a payment to which he or she is at least morally entitled. The application in this case did not survive the various checks and balances because of the nature of the system. Surely the system must be reviewed and the procedures and methods deployed to process applications engineered in such a manner as to cater for the particular needs of individuals such as those I described.

The doctor in this case showed no interest. The Department should consider introducing other approaches which take into account all relevant information and under which the outcome of individual cases are determined on merit. Sufficient medical evidence is available to support what I have said. I ask the Minister to examine the ideology driving our archaic system which leaves many people behind.