Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Dec 2003

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. McCarthy: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of abolishing the means test for carer's allowance."

The Minister touched on this matter in her Second Stage contribution. The carer's allowance formed a significant policy plank in the last general election and is a hugely emotive issue. Many people are providing an invaluable service to those who are not fortunate enough to be able to cater for themselves. This can be viewed in two ways. Some €180 million is a considerable amount of money. However, I do not know how much money carers are saving the State. They play an invaluable role and, in the words of a former Taoiseach, are doing the State some service. This is a hugely important feature of the compassionate and caring side of many people.

Unfortunately many people are forced into having to care for others. The means test will exclude many people who could do with the allowance. They are saving the State money and may not be very well off themselves. This was included along with a number of other measures in the report submitted to the Department by the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. The Minister said this was discussed and considered at length. The capital gains tax rate was reduced some years ago from 40% to 20%. While we can talk about the rich and poor all night, there are ways of raising the appropriate finance to take this measure.

Mr. Cummins: I support the amendment. I referred to this matter during my Second Stage contribution. The value carers give to the State is immeasurable. As the Minister stated it is not possible to measure the cost of people caring for the elderly and those not capable of looking after themselves. The amount of €180 million is significant. This was the number one priority in the report from the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. If we are serious about it, the Government should examine ways to raise the €180 million necessary to look after those who have not received recognition over the years. Next year, instead of taking €58 million from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, as the Minister for Finance did this year, perhaps he could divert €180 million so that we could abolish the means test next year. While the Minister for Social and Family Affairs will need to do considerable work to convince the Minister for Finance, I am sure she is quite capable of doing so.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mary Coughlan): I thank the Senators for their great support. I look forward to their accompanying me to the Department of Finance when we negotiate the budget next year. We have deliberated on this matter on a number of occasions. The €180 million would support an additional 20,000 carers. There is an eligibility criterion not only on means but also on providing full-time care and attention. As other carers would be providing fewer hours than set down by my Department, this only affects 20,000 people. While I do not have the exact figures, if we were to abolish this as well as the other eligibility criterion, it would cost a considerable amount of money.

The disregards will be very beneficial. Some €46 million was provided in 1997 and €165 million this year, which represents a considerable increase in carer's allowance and benefit. We will return to this matter. It will be taken into consideration under the long-term care issue. The Senators are correct in saying that institutional care is much more expensive. A recent survey indicated that those who were being cared for preferred to be at home. While there are other considerations for those who are unable to stay at home, in the main people like to stay at home and have some freedom.

Senator Mooney will be aware of the pilot home subvention scheme in my health board area, which has been excellent and gives people considerable freedom. It not only necessitates an income support but also needs a service provision. Service provision is often better in rural areas than in urban areas because of active care for the aged groups and others who provide sheltered housing, meals on wheels two or three times a week, and little parties. They facilitate chiropodists, hairdressers etc. to come to the local day hospital or health centre. This is the type of framework which is reflective of Irish life. I do not want to see us becoming so European that we disregard our own people. However, there are changes in lifestyles and there are people living in Dublin without any family. People are left at home when their families are much further away and we must also consider these realities.

The issues of caring and long-term care must be considered in conjunction with service provision, which will be an all-encompassing issue in the next few years. I will progress further a number of the recommendations of the report produced by the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. We will be able to deal with some simple recommendations, relating to matters such as the provision of information, within a few months. The other issues, which are not just income-based, will be equated to service provision. I appreciate that this amendment, which calls on the Minister to lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of abolishing the means test, is merely a means of facilitating discussion on the matter. The reports are in place and we are keen to deal with their implementation, hopefully in the next year. I look forward to hearing the personal views of Senators, the joint committee and many organisations during the period of consultation on the provision of long-term care. Despite our goodwill, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Mr. McCarthy: I thank the Minister for her comments. Before I withdraw the amendment, I wish to impress on the Minister the importance of producing a report on the abolition of the means test for carer's allowance. We have a duty of care in respect of carers who did not benefit from the boom years. I urge the Minister to take action on this front. I know she will do her best and I appreciate her endeavours.

Mr. Cummins: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report contrasting the benefits under the Social Welfare Code, when this Bill is enacted with–

(a) National Anti-Poverty Strategy,

(b) National Children's Strategy,

(c) Health Strategy,

(d) Sustaining Progress, and

the Government Programme.".

This self-explanatory amendment was also tabled by my party colleague on Committee Stage in the other House. I ask the Minister to comment on it.

Mr. Mooney: Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on the recent ESRI report on the reduction of poverty in real terms, to which she referred in her speech, in the context of the national anti-poverty strategy. What steps does she propose to take to continue the downward movement in this area? Will the methodology be changed to accommodate the new economic environment in which we live? Those who were deemed to be poor or living below the poverty line 20 years ago would not be designated as such under the present criteria. Are the figures being massaged? Are we really attacking this? Are we making a success of our economic management in terms of the further reduction and, hopefully, elimination of poverty, notwithstanding what I said earlier about the Lord?

Mary Coughlan: We all agree with the Senator's philosophy on the elimination of poverty. The national anti-poverty strategy sets out a number of objectives. It is hoped to reduce to 2% and ideally to eliminate consistent poverty, to build an inclusive society and to develop social capital, particularly for disadvantaged communities. When we discuss this issue from a social welfare perspective, we normally seek to achieve a rate of €150 per week in 2002 terms for the lowest rates of social welfare, to be met by 2007. The Government strategy also seeks to eliminate long-term unemployment as soon as circumstances permit, but in any event not later than 2007, to halve the proportion of pupils with serious literacy difficulties by 2006 and to reduce the gap in premature mortality between the lowest and highest socio-economic groups by at least 10%.

The national anti-poverty strategy is an integrated one. When one speaks of the achievement of the NAPS targets from a social welfare perspective, one is talking mainly about the lowest social welfare income supports. We have tried to progress towards that target in recent years and this year has seen some very progressive achievements to that end. It is my view that we will have to spend €11 or €12 in the next few years to reach a rate of €150 per week by 2007. That is well within our reach. Although we have had to work in changed economic circumstances, we have made a considerable contribution to the achievement of that target in 2007. The last time I checked we were still in 2003, so we still have some time to achieve the targets by 2007.

Mr. McCarthy: Last year was a busy one for the Government.

Mary Coughlan: Every year is a busy year. We are tired of telling people how great we are.

Mr. McCarthy: The Government did five years' work in one year.

Mary Coughlan: The targets are reflected in the programme for Government and the partnership agreements. It is my view that we will reach the important targets unless there is an economic disaster, which I do not foresee. It is often better to set high targets so that the mind is focused on their achievement. I certainly feel that the targets in all parts of the national anti-poverty strategy, including the social welfare elements, will be met. The social inclusion office in my Department, which is driving the achievement of the targets, works very well with a number of other Departments to keep these issues high on the agenda and to ensure that the targets are met.

Mr. Cummins: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the appropriateness of the basket currently used to determine the C.P.I. to social welfare recipients; the desirability of preparing, on at least an annual basis, of a separate index based on a basket of items appropriate to such recipients and the cost of preparing such an annual index.".

We believe that this amendment should be examined in order that the relevance of the consumer price index to social welfare recipients can be ascertained. Perhaps the Minister or her officials can consider this suggestion after the Bill has been passed.

Mary Coughlan: We have had many discussions on the methodology of setting targets and determining the appropriateness of the CPI basket. The number of items assessed as part of the CPI process is frightening. My Department does not have the wherewithal to provide a different type of indicator. We feel that the CPI is the best means of progression and we want to proceed with it because it is the best overall way of examining the purchasing power of a household. This has been reflected in the inflation rate that has been set. When one examines the increases of 6% and 8% in real terms in social welfare baseline payments, it is obvious that increases are well ahead of inflation. The increases enjoyed by some people are three times more than inflation, in terms of the purchasing power they had last year. One is often criticised because the real increases may be clawed back, but I have to say they are not clawed back. That they are real increases is especially evident when one considers there was an inflation rate of 2.5%, on average, last year. I do not doubt that the increases are being set well within the reach of those who receive social welfare benefits.

I am not in a position to change the method of compiling the consumer price index. It is the best way forward because it gives an all-encompassing view of a number of items of necessity. I am not in a position to agree to this amendment. There would be concerns in the Department if I were to seek the establishment of a new way of comparing prices. I said to the Fine Gael spokesman in the other House that I look forward to the day when I will go shopping with him. We will see what kind of value for money we will get in our basket.

Mr. Browne: Does the Minister refer to Deputy Ring?

Mr. Wilson: The Minister would be a brave woman to go shopping with that fellow.

Mary Coughlan: After we have finished, Deputy Ring and I might have different perspectives about what we consider the necessities of life. I am certainly not in a position to change the methodology by which we determine the consumer price index. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Mooney: Does the Department take a hands-on approach to dealing with social welfare recipients, particularly families, by helping them to manage their weekly budget and prioritise necessities, as the Minister has said? The only reason I raise this is that I am constantly taken aback, particularly by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul at this time of year, which constantly refers to the fact that the number of people who seem simply unable to cope with the daily needs of life, such as feeding their children or getting them footwear, is growing rather than falling. We all grew up – I certainly did – getting meat perhaps only once every two weeks. In rural Ireland, the budget was managed. I know that the answer is a simple "Yes", but is this an area to which the Minister attaches particular importance?

Mary Coughlan: The Department supports the money advice and budgetary service, MABS. Millions more have been provided for it. There are now 61 centres in the country. The last one to be opened was in my own town in Donegal, so one cannot say I showed favouritism to my own county. I had to wait until last. That excellent service is free, confidential and independent. It also has several protocols, for example, with the credit unions. It works with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Citizens Advice Bureaux, my own Department, local authorities, and voluntary and community organisations.

Of all organisations, it has certainly been exemplary. It looks after people who find themselves in debt. We had a very fine project in County Mayo last year which I attended with some schoolchildren. With the MABS adviser, they learned exactly what the Senator is talking about, namely, how to budget effectively. I have considered giving some funding this year towards expanding and integrating this with the Department of Education and Science as part of citizenship education. It is often very easy to knock the Department until one finds out how much it does and the great amount of effort and time invested by many members of staff on an individual and group basis in supporting people and helping them in basic and second-chance education, part of which is basic literacy and budgeting. All those very time-consuming and progressive initiatives are available throughout the country.

It may be that it is only when one comes into this job that one appreciates how much work is being done by the Department with other community organisations and the vocational education committees. Budgeting is part of many of the courses provided. MABS is examining its expansion within the education service. That will be very fruitful. The pilot project conducted in Mayo was absolutely excellent and we were very proud of what the children were able to achieve in a very realistic way. Determining the priorities of life is an issue. Often, as Senator Scanlon has said regarding the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, it is social difficulties that reduce one's purchasing power when it comes to necessities. The free and independent MABS service has done excellent work in supporting people who find themselves in budgetary difficulties.

Mr. Cummins: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the desirability of index linking all payments under the Acts each year in line with inflation.".

Tabling this amendment does not, of course, preclude any Minister from granting increases above and beyond index-linking payments. There are a fair number of areas which did not see any increases this year and have not seen increases, as outlined, since 1994 in some instances. I ask for a report to be published on the desirability of automatically index-linking the payments under the Acts.

Mary Coughlan: The Senator has answered his own question. If we had automatically index-linked payments over the last few years, we would have had less available. That is quite paradoxical, given that we are all jumping up and down on both sides of the House on this matter. However, we would be worse off if we had payments indexed automatically. I appreciate the Senator said that there would be flexibility for the Minister to act.

Mr. Cummins: It would cater for the payments that have not been increased.

Mary Coughlan: This year everyone received €10 extra support. The qualified adult allowance was increased. There was a specific increase for those on invalidity pensions and for widows and widowers over 66 who find themselves in an anomalous situation. If this were tied to the CPI, I would be increasing payments by 2.5% rather than 6% to 8%.

Dr. Mansergh: I do not think there has been a single occasion since 1987, at least under Fianna Fáil Governments, where the increases have not been at least at the rate of inflation; they are usually much more. The Senator is referring to the specific point of the child dependant allowance. A study was conducted during the time of the rainbow coalition under the auspices of Deputy De Rossa as Minister for Social Welfare. People were bothered about poverty traps, and there was a strong recommendation by the interdepartmental committee that one should increase child benefit and maintain child dependant allowance. It was a quite conscious social policy decision taken by the rainbow coalition Government and continued since. We ought to be aware of that.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Acting Chairman: Senator McCarthy has indicated his opposition to this section.

Mr. McCarthy: I did so for obvious reasons. I would welcome the Minister's comments in this regard.

Mary Coughlan: Does that mean the Senator does not understand the section?

Mr. McCarthy: It means the Minister does not have the answer ready.

Mary Coughlan: A key component of the administration of the benefits system and its practical operation is the concept of continuity in a claim and the notion of linked claims. Consequently, where a person makes an unemployment benefit or disability benefit claim within 13 weeks of the end of a previous claim, both claims may be linked, fully in the case of unemployment benefit and partially in the case of disability benefit. The principal advantage of claim linking for the recipient is that he or she may maintain some or all of the entitlements established during the course of the first claim, for example, the retention of entitlements or payment at a higher rate rather than disallowance or lower rates because of a new benefit year applying to the second claim for unemployment benefit only or payment of secondary benefits, such as smokeless fuel allowance, from the start of the second claim. We will be utterly confused now.

Overall, extending the period during which two claims may link will, by increasing the number of linked claims, cause the entitlement to be exhausted earlier, thereby reducing the overall number of weeks of payment. The effect will be partially offset by the retention of entitlements which would not have applied without the extended linking period. In a changing labour market and the consequent change in work patterns to, for instance, short-term temporary employment, it is considered appropriate that the short-term social welfare schemes should adapt accordingly.

Mr. McCarthy: Perhaps the Minister might repeat that.

Acting Chairman: Under the Standing Orders of the House, one may not be repetitive.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Moylan: I wish to express our thanks to the Minister on introducing the Bill. Someone commented earlier that she is in a straitjacket. It would be a brave Minister for Finance or any other Minister who would be able to put Deputy Mary Coughlan in a straitjacket.

People have stated that consideration must be given to the matter of rent supplements. I have been of the view for some time that the system of rent supplements is nothing short of an ATM for landlords and the Minister is correct to tackle the problems that exist in this area. I compliment her on her work to date.

Mr. Wilson: I thank the Minister for coming before the House and for remaining here for the duration of the debate. Senator McCarthy referred to decentralisation on a number of occasions. It would be my desire, I hope the Taoiseach is listening, that in a few short months this great Minister for Social and Family Affairs might be moved to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources which is due to be transferred, in its entirety, to Cavan town.

Acting Chairman: Is that in addition to her current responsibilities?

Mr. Wilson: The Minister has performed admirably in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I am sure she will be able to deal with Cavan.

Mr. Cummins: I thank the Minister for providing explanations in respect of many of the sections in the Bill. I was delighted that she did not repeat the explanation she provided on section 8. I thank her for remaining in the Chamber for the entire debate.

Mr. McCarthy: I thank the Minister for her attendance in the Chamber. She has been generous recently with her time—

Mr. Mooney: And her money.

Mr. McCarthy: —as opposed to her Department's budget. I imagine the position she occupies is quite difficult. I would not like to be obliged to seek funding for such a complex Department from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. That, in itself, deserves recognition.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mary Coughlan): I am delighted to have been able to come before the House to take the debate on the Bill. I thank Senators on all sides for their forbearance and contributions. There will, of course, be another social welfare Bill in the new year. I am glad that so many people sympathise with me, but I do not know why they do so. I have the largest spending Department in the Government, with a budget of over €11.2 billion.

Mr. B. Hayes: Eaten bread is soon forgotten.

Mary Coughlan: Christmas is coming and so is the Cathaoirleach. I thank him and the members of the staff for their support over the year. I wish them and Senators the compliments of the season.

Ms O'Rourke: I wish the Minister the compliments of the season.

Mary Coughlan: I also take this opportunity to thank my staff. One does not appreciate these people until one comes to rely on them. They worked tirelessly in recent weeks in preparing for the budget, in supporting the legislative measures attached thereto and in ensuring that people will receive their payments on time on 1 January.