Vol. 619 No. 3
1 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on whether the social welfare system supports the needs of men and women equitably; his proposals to ensure same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17794/06]
The social welfare system is designed to provide income supports and access to relevant services in a timely manner to all our customers. The system is neutral with regard to how it treats men and women; receipt of payment is dependent on contingency and other conditions being met. Levels of payment and how they apply are exactly the same for men and women. However, while there is equity in access to the social welfare system for men and women, the impact of past labour market experience and the traditional roles of women in the home can mean that they may indirectly be impacted upon within the system.
With regard to social insurance schemes, this may relate to insufficient or incomplete social insurance records. As regards means tested payments, the structure of the payments system could have had the effect of excluding certain categories, mainly women, from labour market supports and prevented them from becoming financially independent. As society has changed so too has the social welfare system and these impacts have been seen and continue to be, addressed by my Department.
The policy of Government over the years has been the expansion of the social insurance system to ensure that it is as inclusive as possible. A range of measures has been taken to facilitate access to insurance for those with incomplete records and to make the system more flexible to recognize the pattern of people's lives and the introduction of new payments reflecting caring responsibilities. These include the extension of social insurance cover to part-time workers, introduction of the home maker's disregard, extending coverage for maternity and adoptive benefits to the self-employed and the introduction of a carer's benefit. With regard to access to pensions, men and women are treated in exactly the same way under the qualifying conditions for old age contributory and retirement pensions. However, in the past many women left, or were forced to leave the workforce to care for family members and consequently have gaps in their insurance records. A number of measures have been introduced over the years to facilitate those with incomplete insurance records to receive payment. These include a reduction in the yearly average number of contributions required for pension purposes from 20 to ten and special half rate pensions based on pre-1953 insurance contributions. Pro rata pensions are also available to allow people with mixed rate insurance records to receive a payment.
The Government will continue with the aim of making the social insurance system as inclusive as possible and reflecting the life changing and evolving experiences of men and women. In terms of means tested payments, the ending of the use of qualified adult allowances in social assistance is one of the major recommendations in the report I recently launched in Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents and Low Income Families.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The report recommends the ending of the one-parent family payment and qualified adults in social assistance and the introduction of a parental allowance which would be payable to all low income families. This will both facilitate the person's financial independence and enable supports and services to be made available to the individual. At a broad level my Department is carrying out a technical review of the entire social welfare code to examine its compatibility with the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended. The review will identify any instances of direct or indirect discrimination, on any of the nine grounds under the Act that are not justified by a legitimate social policy objective.
The social welfare system must adapt so as to reflect the attitudes and expectations of society. In consultation with groups representing women and men my Department is and will continue to plan and implement reform which reflects these changing needs and to ensure equity in the system.
I thank the Minister for his response. Does he recall the commitment given in An Agreed Programme for Government, 2002, to introduce a personal entitlement for pensioners' spouses currently in receipt of the qualified adult allowance, set at the level of a full non-contributory pension? What progress has been made in that regard and does the Minister still believe that it can be achieved?
Does he agree that the social welfare system is based on the male breadwinner model, which reinforces women's dependence on men? Does he agree, for instance, that the economic dependence of women creates high levels of poverty, as shown by the CSO report, Women and Men in Ireland 2002, where 23% were found to be living in poverty compared to 18% of men, and older women in particular were at high risk of poverty? What has he done regarding the administrative and legislative implications of making changes to the system to ensure that the more qualified adults can receive a direct payment? In this regard, how many are receiving this direct payment?
Does he agree that the home maker's scheme provides only disregards and lasts for merely 12 years, which means that many women may still not qualify for a pension? Does he not agree that if disregards were changed to credits, this would give the role of women more career recognition?
What has the Minister been doing as regards pension coverage for women? What has happened in the past year since he began to talk about it? Does he agree that individualising the carer's allowance would help a great many more carers and that at present only 14% of carers are in receipt of the carer's allowance? What is he doing as regards the introduction of a part-time unemployment benefit for parents with children aged up to 12? Does he agree that would give financial assistance to many women currently looking for part-time work as quality affordable child care is not really available to them?
There are 40 questions there. The main thrust of what the Deputy is saying, under these different headings, is that we need to take more action as regards the position women find themselves in under the social welfare code, and I accept that. It is mainly women who are in receipt of qualified adult allowances. The issue of paying that directly is under examination. I have met representatives from the National Women's Council of Ireland and discussed that point with them. I am in favour of making that payment directly. I have asked the Department to work out the logistics of that and how we might make it happen. It is currently doing precisely that.
Poverty is more prevalent among women. One of the reasons, I suppose, is the proportion of those in receipt of contributory as opposed to non-contributory State pensions. Some 57% of those receiving the non-contributory State pension are women whereas on the contributory side, it is about 37%. It is clear from this that poverty is more prevalent among those in receipt of the means tested non-contributory pension. It is true that poverty has been affecting women more heavily, particularly those on non-contributory pensions.
Having said that, over the years substantial increases have been made in all pensions, as well as significant increases in disregards, particularly as regards allowing increased amounts of capital to be kept and so on. As regards poverty, this has contributed substantially towards improving the position of women.
The Deputy asked about the home maker's allowance. Every time there is a budget, and at other times, too, we look closely at the home maker's scheme to see whether it can be expanded. It has been expanded on a number of occasions and I will certainly consider whether it may be again. It has made a big difference to many women through ensuring they were able to get contributory pensions. By being given credit under the home maker's scheme they were allowed to get those pensions by qualifying for them.
The final point the Deputy made was about occupational pensions. I do not have a precise figure as regards how they have improved over the past 12 months. However, the number of people taking out PRSAs has increased and is now up to about 70,000, as against approximately 60,000 a year ago. These are very rough figures, however. I assume that a fair proportion of that increase in PRSAs may be accounted for by women. The participation rate of women in the workforce is now almost 53%, which is a dramatic increase, and that is bound to be reflected in the occupational pensions.
2 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the response he has received to his recent discussion paper on proposals for supporting lone parents; if his attention has been drawn to concerns expressed by lone parents groups that some of the proposals contained in his recent discussion paper could create new poverty traps and the particular concerns expressed regarding the proposed withdrawal of the new parental allowance in respect of children over eight; his views on these concerns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17552/06]
The Government acknowledges that the risk of poverty, especially child poverty, tends to be higher among one parent families, larger families and those faced by long-term unemployment. This is due mainly to the direct costs of rearing children, including child care costs, and the opportunity costs related to the reduced earnings capacity of parents, arising from their care responsibilities. This applies particularly to one-parent families as the lone parent has to be the main breadwinner and carer at the same time.
One of the key tasks in the ending child poverty initiative under Sustaining Progress is to address obstacles to employment for lone parents. The senior officials group on social inclusion was mandated late in 2004 to examine this issue and report back to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion with specific proposals. A sub-group of the senior officials group examined obstacles to employment for lone parent families, with particular emphasis on income supports, employment, education, child care and support programmes and information.
As part of the process, a working group established in my Department reviewed the income support arrangements for lone parents, looking at issues including the contingency basis of the one parent family payment, co-habitation and the fact that the payment can act as a disincentive to the formation of partnerships and discourage joint parenting. As a result of this process, which included consultation with the social partners, I recently launched a major Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, which addresses the social exclusion and risk of poverty faced by many such families and their children.
The report puts forward radical proposals for reform of and improvements to the income support system for all parents on a low income. The report proposes an expanded availability and range of education and training opportunities for lone parents, the extension of the national employment action plan to focus on lone parents, focused provision of child care, improved information services for lone parents and the introduction of a new parental allowance for low income families with young children.
The Government has asked the senior officials group on social inclusion to draw up an implementation plan to progress the non-income recommendations of the discussion paper, including those related to child care, education, training and activation measures. Work on this has already commenced in consultation with the Departments and agencies concerned. As a follow-up to the publication of the discussion paper, I hosted a national consultative forum on 27 April 2006. This forum was attended by social partners, representatives of organisations dealing with lone parents and the unemployed, representatives of Departments and State agencies who will be responsible for the implementation of the proposals in the discussion paper and Members of the Oireachtas.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
At the forum, I heard the views of each organisation on the proposals, including their comments on the proposed parental allowance, and invited them to make formal written submissions setting out those views. The Government will listen closely to the views expressed and will give serious consideration to them. As soon as I am satisfied that we have reached conclusions that are sensible, fully workable and clearly thought out, it is my intention to bring forward proposals for legislation during the course of this year.
The Labour Party supports the initiation of such discussions and proposals to get them out in the open. Supports must be as simple and understandable as possible and adequate to prevent poverty and ensure individuals' rights to be treated equally. The co-ordination of supports of a consistent standard across Departments must also be pursued. It is important that lone parents would be treated as individuals, not as dependent on someone else. It is also important that the structures and systems would change to facilitate the full and equal participation of those who are parenting alone.
The main issue is access to quality, affordable child care. This is critical for lone parents who wish to participate in the labour market. How will the child care needs of lone parents living in areas where child care is minimal or unavailable be met? Will after-school care be provided and will school holidays be covered? Will assistance be provided for the transport of the children of lone parents to school if lone parents cannot do so because they are participating in education, training or employment? It is only fair that educational and training options and community employment schemes are flexible. A significant number of lone parents participate in CE schemes because they are flexible, locally based, part-time and do not bring about a decrease in income by allowing the preservation of secondary benefits.
I compliment Frances Byrne and Camille Loftus, in particular, for the excellent work they have done in analysing this issue. They have stated that the welfare to work proposal will, ironically, and despite the Minister's best efforts, create a major poverty trap, and they have serious reservations about the practical impact of the proposed reforms. The withdrawal of the parental allowance will create serious poverty traps unless significant reform takes place of other elements of social welfare and the tax system. They stated poverty traps would arise, primarily because of the re-application of the limitation rule when the parental allowance finishes and the more stringent means of assessment applied to unemployment payments. These poverty traps will mostly affect the people who are doing what the Minister and society want of them, namely, going out to work for a living.
Has the Minister studied the submission from OPEN, which illustrates the disparity in income of two lone parents living next to each other, one with a child aged five and one with a child aged eight, both working the same hours on the minimum wage? If they both work 12 hours a week, one person's income will be €74.31 per week or €3,864 per annum lower than the other. If both work 20 hours a week, the income of one person will be €88.93 per week or €4,624 per annum less than the other. This is owing to the involvement of age limitations. The early child care supplement will go at age six. The parental allowance will go at age eight and we will create a major poverty trap. I say this to the Minister, not in a——
The Deputy should confine himself to a question.
I will summarise this. Is the Minister aware——
Six minutes of the time allocated to this question have elapsed and I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to reply.
——of this and what can he do to ensure this does not happen to defeat the proposals?
We are having a national debate on this matter. We have had a number of fora and public discussions. As he is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, I have listened carefully to what the Deputy said and I will take it on board as part of the discussion we are having. As soon as I am satisfied that we have reached some conclusions that are sensible and workable, then I will go back to Government with proposals for legislation in this area.
If the Deputy is indicating that the present proposals where the cut-off is at age eight could throw up a kind of trap, we will certainly look at that. It was proposed in the recommendations that there would be a five-year lead-in time which would give people a fair length of time to adjust to the new circumstances. People on existing schemes would continue, as it were, until we got to that stage.
The age of eight referred to in the report is not one on which I am necessarily stuck. If there is a better age at which to do it, I would certainly consider that option. The reality is that the current one parent family payment provides long-term income support until a child is 18 or 22. We have all agreed in this House that it is not good for those young people aged 18 to 22 years or their parents for there not to be some State intervention or support. There is general agreement that if we are to tackle child poverty, which is especially prevalent with lone parents, we really must get to grips with that situation and have that interaction with the State at regular intervals as the child grows up.
I agree with the Deputy also that child care is critical to all of this. A total of €500 million has been invested in the equal opportunities child care programme. Almost 41,000 new child care places have been created and by 2011 a total of 91,000 child care places will have been created. We should look at this and the additional funding which has been invested. The Deputy is aware of the new child care supplement of €1,000 per annum. However, I acknowledge that the subject of lone parents is a particular issue because we cannot get them back to work or training or education — if that is their wish — without addressing the child care issue. We are working closely on these initiatives with other Departments which have a direct role in the child care area.
I join Deputy Penrose in complimenting OPEN, and Frances and Camille and all those who work there in the different organisations. I had a very good meeting with them recently. They are quite right to raise issues and I will listen carefully to them because they are in the front line of all these reforms. I am trying not to be political about this but I genuinely appreciate the open mind that has been shown in this House on this issue. If this were not the case or this issue became a political football, we simply would not make any progress. Whatever political advantage would be gained, we would be unfair to many thousands of people. It is important that we try to push on with this as best we can.
3 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will extend free travel to older Irish emigrants, at the very least to Irish pensioners living in the UK, when they return here on their holidays in view of the fact that a common travel area has always existed between Ireland and the UK which predates the formation of the EU, thus meaning no discrimination against other EU citizens; and his views on whether there is no legal, moral or financial impediment to grant this concession to emigrants in view of the fact that they are already in receipt of an Irish pension and in further view of the recent announcement that Irish persons abroad will receive the President’s 100th birthday cheque. [17718/06]
The free travel scheme is available to all people living in the State aged 66 years or over. All carers in receipt of carer's allowance and carers of people in receipt of constant attendance or prescribed relative's allowance, regardless of their age, receive a free travel pass. It is also available to people under age 66 who are in receipt of certain disability type welfare payments, such as disability allowance, invalidity pension and blind person's pension. Persons resident in the State who are in receipt of a social security, invalidity or disability payment from a country covered by EU regulations, or from a country with which Ireland has a bilateral social security agreement, and who have been in receipt of this payment for at least 12 months, are also eligible for free travel.
The scheme provides free travel on the main public and private transport services for those eligible under the scheme. These include road, rail and ferry services provided by companies such as Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann, as well as Luas and services provided by more than 80 private transport operators. The free travel scheme applies to travel within the State and point-to-point cross-Border journeys between here and Northern Ireland. In line with the Government objective to put in place an all-Ireland free travel scheme for pensioners resident in all parts of this island, I am committed to improving the North-South element of the current arrangements significantly and hope to be in a position to make an announcement about this soon.
There have been a number of requests for and inquiries about the extension of entitlement to free travel in Ireland to Irish-born people living outside Ireland or to those in receipt of pensions from my Department, especially in the UK, when they return to Ireland for a visit. I am continuing to explore all aspects of a possible approach and hope to have a definite answer soon.
In regard to the centenarians' bounty, the Government has approved in principle the extension of the scheme for the payment of the centenarians' bounty to any Irish citizen who was born in the island of Ireland, regardless of where he or she may currently reside. Up to now the bounty, which amounts to €2,500, was payable only to centenarians living in the State. The bounty is a discretionary grant and not a service or scheme and accordingly does not come within the scope of the EU treaty. In this way, it differs from the proposed extension of the free travel scheme.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I hoped he would have news on a breakthrough in the North-South free travel issue. However, he is also anxious to do something regarding the east-west dimension. The common travel area between Ireland and the UK predated the EU but his legal advice is that providing free travel between both countries would discriminate against citizens of other EU states who could not avail of this concession. This common travel area was jealously guarded by Ireland under the Schengen Agreement and that should have precedence.
A European Parliament spokesman stated legal advice had been provided that if Ireland did not provide free travel to the 37,000 pensioners living in the UK who are in receipt of an Irish pension, it would discriminate against them. They could launch a legal challenge at the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Tribunal or the European Court of Justice. The emigrants in receipt of pensions will also receive the centenarian bounty from now on and he would not discriminate against them if he extended the free travel scheme to cover them. It would be great to do that.
What is the Minister's thinking on this? I appreciate he is anxious to extend the scheme but this is a moral debt. These pensioners contributed £2 billion sterling between 1975 and 1995. The task force placed great symbolic significance on this because it said it would mean so much to emigrants, particularly when they return on holidays. The common travel area provision is the Government's out on this, particularly since these people are in receipt of an Irish pension and will receive the bounty.
I compliment the Deputy on his great work in this area. He does a great deal of work with our emigrants in the UK and elsewhere and he is genuine about this issue, like everybody else. The legal position is that it would not be possible under EU legislation to extend free travel to all Irish citizens in the UK because that would mean discriminating in favour of our own nationality. That remains the EU position, although I have asked for it to be re-examined. However, thanks to Members pushing the issue, I have had a number of discussions on whether it would be possible to extend the scheme to the 37,000 emigrants in the UK who are in receipt of an Irish contributory pension and the 3,000 elsewhere. I am waiting on an EU ruling in this regard but I noticed a reply to the Sinn Féin Member of the European Parliament recently, which indicated clearly it would be possible to do this. I cannot be definitive but I am confident that I will be able to extend free travel to those in receipt of Irish contributory pensions around the world. The European Commission should make a ruling on this in the next few weeks. If I can resolve that, I can return to the broader battle, but the legal advice is strong on it.
4 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, further to Question No. 19 of 2 February 2006, if his Department has completed its examination of Barnardos research into young carers; if his Department has come to conclusions on supports for young carers as a result of same; the action he intends to take; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17795/06]
I have examined the research in question by Barnardos and the Children's Research Centre, which was published in September 2004. I was struck that of the estimated 3,000 young carers providing care, more than 300 aged between 15 and 17 provide full-time care. It is clear this group needs appropriate supports.
The Barnardos report recommended that further research should be undertaken on numbers of young carers, the supports available to them, their needs and the impact of their caring role on their education and general development; policy relating to young carers should be a matter for the Department of Health and Children with services being delivered by the Health Service Executive; the physical and sensory database should record cases where significant care responsibility is being undertaken by a young carer; care supports should be provided where families rely on young carers to enable them to participate fully in their studies, social life and social contacts with their peers; emotional and psychological support should be made available to young carers; pilot schemes should be established to see how services could be best developed; and a public awareness programme and an information campaign directed at health, education and social services professionals should be undertaken.
Special help, advice and support is essential for young carers who are often caring for a parent and, in particular, that services must be put in place to support the household and to ensure young carers remain at school. These include the services of home helps, public health nurses and home care packages generally, which are a matter for my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children. The report of the long-term care working group is being considered by the Government. This group was established by the Minister for Health and Children and me in January 2005 to identify the policy options for a financially sustainable system of long-term care. It comprises senior officials of the Departments of Finance, Health and Children and my Department. My officials have brought the issue of young carers to the attention of the working group.
Supports for carers from my Department include the respite care grant and the carer's allowance. The respite care grant, which is an annual payment for carers who look after certain people in need of full-time care and attention, is payable from age 16. The payment is made regardless of the carer's means but it is subject to certain qualifying conditions. The value of the grant will increase from €1,000 to €1,200 from June 2006. Carer's allowance, which provides income support to people who are providing certain older people or people with a disability with full-time care and attention and whose incomes fall below a certain limit, is payable from age 18.
I am always prepared to consider changes to existing arrangements where these are for the benefit of recipients and financially sustainable within the resources available. I will continue to review the issues raised by Barnardos and the Children's Research Centre and other bodies representing carers and I will strive to bring forward proposals that recognise the valued and valuable contribution of all carers in a tangible way.
I sincerely thank the Minister for following up on this issue but I urge him to do more. How many of the 300 full-time carers aged between 15 and 17 are in receipt of the respite care grant, given that they are eligible for the grant when they turn 16? The Minister said he would discuss this issue with the Minsters for Health and Children and Education and Science when I raised it on 9 February. Has he raised it with them and, if so, what was the outcome of those discussions? Has he examined the supports provided for young carers in other jurisdictions? In the UK, for instance, they are eligible for financial aid and while that is not the answer, at least they are getting support. Does the Minister agree virtually no support is provided to young carers in Ireland? Young carers are provided with great support in Australia.
The Deputy published a document on this issue recently, which I will continue to examine. I pointed out the last time we discussed this matter that we need to be careful. The figures indicate 300 carers are aged between 15 and 17, none of whom is in receipt of the carer's allowance because one must be 18 years to be eligible. However, eligibility for the respite care grant was fixed at 16 years to be helpful. I do not know what proportion of the 300 full-time carers are aged under 16 but perhaps it could be 50%. A third to a half of those would get the respite grant.
Can the Minister find out?
Yes I can. We are dealing with those of the group of 300 between 15 and 17 who are under 16. A third to a half would be a good guess.
There is a senior group of officials looking at long-term care. I raised the issue of young carers with that group and they have taken it into consideration. The bottom line is that young carers should be at school. We need to think long and hard before we have a financial provision in place. A full range of services is needed from several Departments to make sure that they look after their studies and their social life. While it might be good for the person needing the care, it is not in the short-term good for the young carer. Young carers should not have to do this work and should be able to continue with education.
I urge the Minister to press this issue. Does he agree that this is a hidden group? There is no virtually no support for them at the moment. It is essential they receive support because their educational, emotional and social development can be damaged by the work that they must undertake because of the lack of support from the State. Can the Minister give a commitment that he will make this a priority at Cabinet level?
Barnardos' first recommendation is to carry out more research on this. We need to get a clear fix on how many people are involved and the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Will the Minister do that?
Yes. It is not just a matter of extending the carer's allowances, because a much broader solution is needed for this.
5 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans for the future development and administration of the community welfare service; the process by which decisions will be made or have been made; the consultation to take place with those who deliver the service and service users; if the service will continue to be delivered locally from multiple and diverse locations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17553/06]
The supplementary welfare scheme is administered by the community welfare service of the Health Service Executive on my behalf. The establishment of the Health Service Executive prompted a fresh consideration of the role and structure of the community welfare service and of the most appropriate location for that service in the future.
The commission on financial management and control systems in the health service noted that, over the years, the health system had been assigned responsibility for a number of services which might be regarded as non-core health activities. It recommended that the Government consider assigning non-core activities currently undertaken by agencies within the health service to other bodies. The Government decided to ask an interdepartmental group to examine this issue. The report of the interdepartmental group was subsequently submitted to, and accepted by, the Government. The report recommends, among other things, that income support and maintenance schemes, together with associated resources, should be transferred to my Department. This initiative was mooted several times in the past by the report of the commission on social welfare in 1986 and by the review of supplementary welfare allowances by the Combat Poverty Agency in 1991. This decision provides an opportunity to bring about positive change for customers and staff and it is a logical approach to provision of these services.
This initiative will have major implications for my Department's existing services and for the future delivery of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. An interdepartmental implementation working group, comprising of officials from my Department, the Department of Finance, the Department of Health and Children and the Health Service Executive, has been established to assess fully these implications and to implement the transfer of those services to my Department. There are major organisational, human resource and service delivery issues involved in the proposed transfer. The working group will undertake extensive consultation with all relevant stakeholders throughout this programme of change. This will include consultation with those who deliver the service and service users.
The specific issues raised by the Deputy are among a range of issues that will be examined by the working group. A priority of the transfer process will be to support the high standard of service currently provided by staff in the community welfare service. The proposed transfer is a major change for all involved but I am confident it will be embraced successfully and will enhance the delivery of services to our customers, in particular those who are most disadvantaged in the community.
I thank the Minister for his reply. This is a prime example of putting the cart before the horse. There was no consultation with the people involved in the community welfare service, with the end users or with anyone else. Where is there a copy of the report of the core functions of the health service? Does the Minister realise that some people who implement this scheme have not yet seen the report? There was no negotiation with the trade unions involved.
Is there someone in the Department hell bent on subsuming the community welfare service into that Department? Someone wants it in that Department come hell or high water and I want to know why. When will the Minister consult with those who deliver the service and service users? Will the service continue to be delivered locally? The community welfare officers knew everyone locally and exercised discretion. They have built up a personal relationship with many of the users of the service. It will now be put in the Minister's Department, where discretion is often frowned upon.
Can the Minister guarantee the special nature and the ethos of the service? Can he guarantee that its efforts to alleviate social distress will not be curtailed or frustrated by his Department? Will he consider strengthening the supplementary allowance legislation to enshrine its ability to respond to the needs of users? Such a feature is not characteristic of schemes administered and controlled by the Department. The Labour Party is deeply concerned about this scheme as it was developed by the late Frank Cluskey and it was used by people in extreme difficulties. When it enters the Department, will the dead paw of bureaucracy abolish the discretion that currently exists?
The existing service will not be diluted or changed in any significant way. The role filled by community welfare officers is fundamental. They are at the front line in addressing income supports on a day-to-day basis. There are between 750 to 1,000 community welfare officers in different grades.
This is not some new idea that I thought up. It goes back to the report on the commission on social welfare in 1986 and was reinforced by the review of supplementary welfare allowances carried out by the Combat Poverty Agency in 1991. We are hardly rushing it as the concept has been around for 20 years.
Could the Minister kill it off?
The idea is fundamentally sound. The officers are working for the HSE and reimbursed indirectly by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Their real work is dealing with disadvantage at the front line. They will still maintain their current discretion, but they will work with the Department that is primarily responsible for dealing with the same kind of disadvantage. It is more sensible to have these officers within the Department of Social and Family Affairs than have them working for the HSE and reimbursed through my vote transferred to the HSE. They do fantastic work, but it leaves my Department without direct troops in the field in the fight against disadvantage.
The community welfare officers are a huge asset to the country. There will be full consultation between the working group, the unions and the stakeholders involved in this. It is the right thing to do and I hope we can do it successfully.
