Marie Moloney (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I always feel that when he attends here he takes on board what we say. He has the good trait of listening attentively to what all Senators have to say.

The Bill contains some positive proposals which I welcome. On the other hand, there are a number of proposals that I wish to discuss in further detail with the Minister of State.

One of the most positive aspects of the Bill is the introduction of the back to work family dividend scheme which was announced in budget 2015. The introduction of the scheme will create an incentive for people to move from welfare to work. It will also widen the gap between an individual's disposable income when working as opposed to income received while he or she is on social welfare.I have said many times in social welfare debates that nobody should be better off unemployed than working. We must always incentivise people to return to work, and the introduction of the back to work family dividend scheme is a step in the right direction. However, I ask the Minister of State to explain why it has been decided to limit the back to work dividend to four children. There are many families with more than four children, yet they can only claim it for up to four children. I do not understand the thinking behind this and ask the Minister of State for his thoughts on this matter.

It is a well known that many people struggle with the decision of whether to take up a job, if it will be worthwhile and if they will they lose benefits, such as the fuel allowance, rent supplement or, for many, most importantly, their medical card. If they lose the medical card, they are anxious because they may not be able to afford health care and if they live in the country they will lose their entitlement to free school transport. I have never believed that school transport should be free just because one has a medical card. It should be free to those who simply cannot afford to pay for it, and it should come under the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport or the Department of Education and Skills, not the Department of Social Protection or the Department of Health. This is of great concern to people and one can understand the reason.

The Bill also puts in place jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangements for those who are on the one parent family payment and whose youngest child has reached the age of seven years. We will be discussing this issue in much more detail in the Private Members' motion this evening. However, I welcome the fact that people who are parenting alone and who are transferring to jobseeker's allowance do not have to satisfy the full-time availability for work clause and need only be available for work during school hours until their child reaches the age of 13 years. I also welcome the Minister's decision to allow those on the one parent family payment, who are in receipt of half-rate carer's payment, to retain the one parent family payment and the half-rate carer's payment until their youngest child reaches the age of 16 years. I was very concerned about this when the changes to the one parent family payment were introduced. I thank the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, for addressing the issue, which I have discussed with the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, on numerous occasions and also at the Oireachtas committee. It is welcome that this will impact on those who lost entitlements since 2013. Will the Minister of State clarify if they will be backdated or reinstated from the date of passage of the Bill?

Another matter I have discussed with the Minister is the issue of those on the jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangement who are currently in education, or wish to take up education, and if she would consider the introduction of what I call a back to education allowance transitional arrangement, which would allow them to claim the registration fee and maintenance under the third level grant scheme. When in receipt of the one parent family payment, they were eligible to claim it but when they transfer to jobseekers transition allowance, they are no longer eligible and will go on to the back to education allowance. I am aware the Minister is working on this issue but I ask that it be dealt with as quickly as possible for the new school year.

I welcome the introduction of additional medical assessors for the Department. Invariably people who apply for carer's, invalidity and disability allowance wait a considerable time before the medical assessor deals with the application. This waiting causes a lot of stress for people along with the uncertainty as to whether their application will be successful.

Section 4 deals with the operation of the carer's benefit, allowance and respite care schemes. It was my opinion that all of these schemes were always assessed on the criteria that the person being cared for needed full-time care and attention from the carer and that the caree required continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions or continual supervision in order to avoid danger to himself or herself. However, a carer does a lot more than just supervising a person's medication or helping with bodily functions. Most carers do everything from supervising the person to bathing, assisting with toileting, shaving, and helping the caree to live safely and comfortably in the community rather than having to live in residential care. That entails much more than just seeing to their bodily functions. A carer can come in and shower or bathe a caree, and assist them to the bathroom and then leave the house, but that does not mean the person can live on his or her own. They need help with everyday things such as collecting prescriptions, attending doctor or hospital appointments, cooking, cleaning, putting down the fire or changing beds, all of which takes time. They really do need someone to help them. As we are all aware, home help hours have been cut so much that this kind of work no longer comes under the criteria of home helps. It is all about personal care now, so if people wish to continue living at home in their community and in the environment where they have always lived, many need a carer. If caring is restricted to normal bodily functions or continual supervision in order to avoid danger to himself or herself, many people will not be eligible for a carer and a nursing home subvention or the fair deal is a far more expensive option for the Exchequer.

I note that the current legislative provision is that a person will be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention where the nature and extent of his or her disability or incapacity has been certified by a registered medical practitioner. To be honest, I wish that really was the case, because I have just gone through numerous appeals for people whose medical practitioner says that they are in need of a carer and yet the Department will not accept that. We spend weeks and weeks fighting their cases with reviews, appeals and oral hearings. We are successful with some but not others. It certainly does not come down to a GP or medical practitioner saying the person has a disability and needs a carer. There is much more to it than that. I was of the opinion that the deciding officer always had a say in it. I do not think this legislation is going to change that because it is already happening. I trust that this deciding officer will be a medical officer who will know when the person, medically, needs help.

I commend the Minister of State on the crackdown in fraud within social welfare which has resulted in millions of euro being saved and that the social welfare spend has been reduced by €83 million as a result. I welcome this as it means there is more money to go around and it can be targeted at those who need it and not those who are fraudulently claiming from the Department. The only negative point I have to make is that the Department is requesting an excessive amount in repayments in many cases. While I agree the money has to be repaid, sometimes people just cannot afford to repay the amount demanded by the Department. Even though one appeals it, the Department still insists that they pay it. If a recall correctly, a social welfare Bill provided that the amount of the repayment would be around €28 per week but in many cases the Department is demanding in excess of that amount.

Overall, I welcome the Bill. As I said, we will speak in more detail about one parent families during the debate on the Private Members' motion which follows.