David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry. I am sure he will transmit the gist of what is said here to the Minister for Social Protection, who has regrettably had to leave. The Minister, Deputy Burton, is a decent and courageous person. I do not envy her as she faces such a mammoth task. As I am nearly 70, I have lived through a couple of economic crises, but this is the worst one I can remember. I never thought I would live to see the day when 10% of Irish people were experiencing food poverty. That ties into what Senator Moloney eloquently said about the need for proper nutrition for our young people. I understand she was echoing what my colleague, Senator Zappone, had said previously. No Department is more necessary or more significant in dealing with this stark situation than the Department of Social Protection. Ultimately, the Government has a duty to protect the welfare of citizens, rather than the system, which has many faults. Senator Moloney referred to a series of anomalies and contradictions within the system. The entire system is rife with them. We need an interdepartmental review of the anomalies and Kafkaesque situations that do not actually assist the Exchequer.

I wish to make a practical suggestion. Somebody at a reasonably senior level in the Civil Service should be appointed to audit the budgetary proposals of the various organisations. I refer specifically to proposals that are supposedly budget-neutral, Exchequer-neutral or to the benefit of the Exchequer. I am dizzy from going from briefing to briefing. That is why I might not be as completely focused as I would like. I will mention some of the briefings I have been at. A number of organisations have produced documents to claim they could do a huge amount for their client base in terms that are budget-neutral or beneficial to the Exchequer. There is a suggestion that these things are not being done because of bureaucratic red tape. A couple of years ago, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, for which I have great regard, suggested that fuel allowance should be frontloaded to allow people to buy oil in bulk. It would not have been more expensive. It might have been cheaper because people would have been able to deal with oil companies that do not supply meagre amounts of oil every two weeks or every month. That suggestion was not adopted even though it would not have cost anything. It would have helped elderly people in isolated areas to have security of heating. Why was it not done? I do not understand it. There is a blockage somewhere. If we centralise the process by asking somebody with the intellectual capacity and the seniority within the Department to review these submissions, he or she might be able to say which ones would be able to eliminate anomalies, save money and benefit the people.

I will give another couple of examples. I attended a briefing yesterday that was organised by some wonderful people from the Family Support Network. Ms Sadie Grace, who champions the cause of the network, is a neighbour of mine from Seán MacDermott Street in the drug-ridden north inner city. She spoke at the briefing about the impact of departmental policies on grandparents. Tragically, it seems it is often the mother in a family who is addicted to certain substances. I do not know why. This creates a problem for her children. As soon as the grandparents move in to deal with the situation that is threatening their daughter and her children, the family is excluded from receiving payments. The Department tells the grandparents that the crisis does not exist anymore - it has been averted because they intervened. It is sheer stark madness that people who sacrifice themselves and put their well-being on the line at a time in their lives when they could have been expected to take their ease and put their feet up are penalised when they heroically intervene in the interests of their children, their grandchildren and society as a whole. We should be supporting these people instead of penalising them.

I appeal that this kind of thing be removed from the system. Similarly, if in a situation where the children are being looked after, the grandparents allow the mother to visit, that also leads to penalties but most psychologists believe that, even with a damaged parent, a connection between the child and the parent is good, particularly when it is monitored by a grandparent. Why penalise people for something that is constructive and good and it does not save money? Imagine what would happen if the grandparents were callous enough to say they would not get involved. The situation would be landed back on the institutions of the State and there would be a multiplier effect in terms of the impact on the finances. I ask that these issues be looked at and the anomalies ironed out as far as possible. I appreciate it is a big task. There should be a central examination of proposals to see if they are budget neutral and to implement them in the interests of the people. I was delighted Senator Moran raised the issue of a centralised means test.