The select committee has been convened to consider the Social Welfare Bill, 2002. At the outset, I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, and her officials to the meeting and thank them for attending. I propose we consider the Bill until 1.30 p.m. today. If we have not concluded by then, a further meeting will be arranged. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Social Welfare Bill, 2002: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
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 increasing child benefit, pensions and other social welfare payments in line with previously stated Government policy commitments, including the National Anti-Poverty Strategy and the Programme for Government.
The Labour Party would like the Minister to consider this amendment. Prior to the general election the Government indicated that social welfare increases would be met in the budget. However, this has not happened. There are major problems in all areas of social welfare and while the Minister will argue that resources are limited, this is only because of the budgetary allocation to the Department.
The poor are suffering most with the result that the greatest support must be given to child benefit and pensions. Last night the Dáil debated rent subsidy. I hope the Department has investigated the matter and that the Minister will clarify the position. Capping the subsidy will create major problems for the rental sector, which is a growing problem in my constituency where large numbers are in receipt of the subsidy. The demand in the Minister's constituency may not be as high as in Kildare which is in close proximity to Dublin. Rental costs are high in areas that are adjacent to cities and if the rent subsidy is to be capped it will have major consequences for those who suffer the indignity of seeking rented accommodation.
The removal of the cap will effectively mean eviction notices for tenants as landlords can increase rents if they wish to remove them. This is a serious issue in County Kildare where it is almost impossible to get rented accommodation in any of the big towns. Arguments with community welfare officers are almost a daily occurrence. I ask the Minister to address this issue.
The Minister must investigate this issue. Given that there is now virtually a budget every day, she must submit a report to the committee within the next few weeks outlining the impact on those on social welfare. The estimated rate of inflation for next year will be 6%. That takes no account of the 1% increase in the lower rate of VAT, the increase in the television licence and the daily price increases in food and fuel. The Department and the various agencies, including CORI and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, must meet to consider the knock-on effect of these measures.
Deputy Wall referred to the proposal to remove the cap on rent subsidy. The Minister should instruct local authorities not to allow rent increases for those on social welfare. It would be outrageous if their rents were to increase following local authority reviews.
All homes have a television, but in some instances it is the only means of entertainment for those on low incomes. It will now become more expensive to watch television, given the increase in licence fee. The Government made a commitment to a three year programme of increases in child benefit. While the Department honoured the commitment up to last year, this year was the most important in terms of need because of the downturn in the economy. The budgetary increase was mean and has been eroded by inflation.
The budget is an attack on the family, despite the increase in the back to school clothing and footwear scheme. The feet of children of seven or eight years are as big as those of 13 or 14 years. For the first time in many years people are beginning to wonder if they will survive. This is aggravated by the fear of further price increases. The Department must submit a report to the committee outlining the effect of the recent price increases on those on social welfare.
Child benefit should be targeted because payments are made directly to women. All surveys indicate the money is spent on children and the family. People argue that high earning families should not receive the benefit. However, many men who earn big salaries do not pass the money on to their partners. At least women get child benefit and they spend it on their children. I meet many women with husbands on contributory or non-contributory pensions who want to get a pension in their own right on the basis that payments will be made directly to them.
Sitting suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11.20 a.m.
In relation to the means test the Bill states: "The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of abolishing the means test." I ask the Minister to consider the implications of not abolishing the means test. Many people who are acting as carers——
Deputy Connolly, we are still discussing the first amendment. You may come back in at the appropriate time. I call Deputy McGrath and I expect him to be brief.
I am surprised at my constituency colleague putting such terrible restrictions and restraints on me, but having been here before, I suspect the officials have anticipated my question and have a sheet of paper ready for the Minister with the response.
Chairman, you referred to the different levels of child benefit payment. This is an issue that I trot out year after year, but I still think it is unjust. Why should we pay a particular rate of child benefit to the first two children and a different rate to third and subsequent children? The Constitution states that all the children of the nation should be treated equally, but in child benefit and child dependant allowances we pay different rates, and that is grossly unfair. There is a further complication where someone has triplets, for example, and the rate is doubled. However, the rate is not doubled for the first, second or third child. The Department adds together the rate for the first, second and third child, divides that by three and then doubles it. In the case of the family that has quintuplets, it does not get double top rate, it gets the rate for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth child, divided by five and multiplied by two. It is ridiculous to have a differentiation in the payment between the first two children and subsequent children, and that should be changed. Although the Chairman is much older than me——
I am sure that is a slip of the tongue.
——like me he was around at the introduction of child benefit. My mother used to call it the half crowns. The Chairman is the eldest of a family of ten and I am the youngest of a family of ten. There was no child benefit for me because I was the youngest. If only one child qualified, the family did not get the benefit. It was then introduced at a rate of ten shillings and my mother thought she was made up, and she needed the money badly.
The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on two occasions gave a commitment to enter a three year phase of child benefit increases, but that commitment has not been honoured. Last night, I asked the Minister to apologise to the mothers of Ireland because the commitment was broken. She failed to do so last night, but perhaps after reflection overnight she will do so today because we need to be humble and acknowledge mistakes that are made. The Minister is acting today on behalf of the Government, which made a commitment and reneged on it so an apology is appropriate. This is a very simple thing and it should be done for the good of the body politic. The Government should admit it got it wrong.
The increase in child benefit this year is just €8. Deputy Ring has set out a very good case, outlining what this is worth, and it is very small. I hear from constituents about overpayments by the Department, which are subsequently clawed back, and I am sure other Members hear the same. I tabled a parliamentary question on the grey area relating to overpayments made by the Department. I had a particular case in mind. When I talked to the official concerned, I was told that the money had to be clawed back because of the regulation. When I tabled my parliamentary question, I discovered there is a certain amount of discretion about whether to claw back an overpayment. When I reverted to the official, he stuck his heels in the ground and refused to budge. I then decided to write to the Secretary General of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. My letter was passed to the official with whom I had been dealing and I got a further letter from him. I was annoyed that the Secretary General decided it was not worth looking at my letter and passed it back. It was unfair to pass it back to the same official again.
In the case in point a single parent received an overpayment. She came to me and asked if it was in order. We rang the Department and kept a contemporaneous note of the conversation that took place with a named official in the particular section of the Department. The official agreed there was an overpayment but because the mistake was made within the Department it would not be clawed back. Lo and behold, three months later this lady got a demand for the money to be repaid at a particular rate per week. This may not be the appropriate place to do so, but we need to establish the position on that. We will be considering many other things to which I will return later. I thank the Chairman for bearing with me.
I wish to raise a number of points, most of which I raised the other evening. Has the Department considered the NAPS review or the Goodbody report, which stated that the majority of the income adequacy group proposed a formal link between adult welfare rates and average earnings? That would ensure the incomes of welfare recipients kept pace with those of the wider population. Have any studies been carried out on the additional cost to the Department of implementing that proposal, namely, that welfare rates would be linked to average earnings as opposed to inflation? What would be the impact of this?
I spoke about poverty-proofing during the debate in the House and the Minister knows my views on it. No doubt she is aware that St. Vincent de Paul published figures showing the huge increase in assistance it must make available to people to buy food, clothing and shelter. It stated that if it had twice the resources, it could spend twice as much. The Minister will be aware of the Combat Poverty Agency's recent publication, Against all Odds: Family Life on Low Income in Ireland, on the lives of those living on social welfare payments. A number of studies give one food for thought.
The budget provided a €6 per week increase to those on the lowest social welfare payment of €118 per week, bringing it up to €124.80 per week. However, this falls short of the PPF commitment that the lowest social welfare payment would be €127 per week. In fairness, the Minister for Finance made the argument that the increase is ahead of inflation. The Minister before us would probably make the same argument. Does she accept that people on low incomes face higher than average prices because of their low purchasing power and lack of private transport? Those in rural areas do not have the same choices as people in urban areas. If people on low incomes do not have choices and must pay higher prices, a greater proportion of their income is consumed.
At first glance, the treatment of pensioners appears to be more generous than that of others on social welfare, which is fair enough, but on closer examination, the inflation rate seems to be projected to be above that anticipated by the Minister for Finance. Will an evaluation or study be carried out by the Minister for Finance and the Minister to assess the impact of this, because the VAT increase will have an impact? Many elderly people live in houses without adequate heating and they will be hit by the increase in VAT on fuel. Furthermore, electricity prices are set to rise by 13%. The Minister will argue that they have an electricity allowance, which I accept. However, that allowance will not cover the entire increase and a greater proportion of electricity will be paid for at the higher rate.
Those are the issues of concern to us. We are eager to know if the Minister has evaluated what additional expenditure will be needed by her Department to increase payments for those on the lowest social welfare payments to the targets set by NAPS and in the programme for Government.
I am delighted to be present. This is my first occasion to meet the committee and I wish it well in its deliberations. I am sure we will meet on a number of occasions. A wide range of issues has been raised within the confines of the amendment and I will try to address them.
An issue which has slid into the discussion on this amendment, and which is related to amendment No. 3, is inflation. It is important to reiterate what the Minister for Finance said in the House. He stated that we expect inflation next year to average 4.8%, which means that in the early part of the year inflation will rise to 5% and possibly even as high as 6%, but we expect the average to come down to 4.8%. The Department and I have taken the average to be 4.8%, although we appreciate there may be fluctuations. Average social welfare payments are above that 4.8% average; some are only slightly above it, while others are at a much higher level. That clarifies the situation in regard to inflation.
The philosophy behind and the direction of the Government's approach to social inclusion has been raised. I am sure Members have a copy of the NAPS document, Building an Inclusive Society, which was reviewed recently and printed in February of this year. This is a five year programme with five year targets. The programme for Government also sets five year targets. We will move towards the key targets in NAPS and in the programme for Government. NAPS goes beyond income adequacy and takes on board issues such as employment, unemployment, education, health, housing and those all encomÍpassing factors which have an impact on poverty.
In the context of those objectives, and as I said in the House last night, I was left with choices. I agree I have not been able to reach some of the targets this year. In other areas, however, I have been able to reach targets and move towards what we want to achieve in respect of widows, old age pensioners and carers. The target in the programme for Government in regard to carers is that an additional 5,000 people will qualify with respite care. As Members know, we are looking at the long-term finance of care because an issue we will all have to consider is our ageing population and how we will care for it. We must also look at adequacy of pension provision to support the elderly in the coming years. In that context, the Minister for Health and Children and I are looking at the best way forward in terms of adequacy of long-term care. When that study is printed, the committee will have the opportunity to deliberate on it and to give its views on this issue.
Members referred to the child benefit target. Deputy McGrath believes child dependant allowances should also be used to address the problem of child poverty. Child benefit is the best way forward because it is an income one, regardless of one's personal circumstances, will have until one's child is 18 or 22 years of age. Some three quarters of the investment has been provided and the additional investment will be provided in the next two years. I appreciate that Members may say that if there are budgetary constraints next year, I might not have the money. The Minister for Finance reiterated in the House that his projections have been done over five years and, in that context, we will be able to deliver as in the last five years.
I appreciate that people are disappointed, but the base line for increases in child benefit over the previous two years was extremely high and such increases were paid. I wish to make sure that, during my term in Government and over the next three years, the last tranche of that money will be made available. In the context of this year, €105 million was made available for child benefit and on that basis I was in a position to provide an additional €8 per month for the first two children and €10 per month for the third and subsequent children. This will increase the monthly rate to €125 for the first child and €251 for the second child. Deputies have information on the figures for subsequent children. In response to the argument that equal allocations should be made to each child, larger families are more expensive to care for. I was reared in a household of seven children and it was not easy for my mother. While the first child is often very expensive, third and subsequent children impose a greater financial burden. Some families must get manual payments because their entitlement is greater than the amount the computer can generate. I am sure Deputies on all sides of the House will ensure that the Government meets its commitment on child benefit over the next two years.
Is the Minister rejecting the concept of equality?
No. The universality of child benefit is a form of equality in that payment is made regardless of income.
What about equality in terms of treatment of the child?
Equality operates on the basis that in overall terms, large families incur a higher financial burden.
The Minister is allowing financial considerations to override consideration of equality.
Financial considerations are important in the context of priorities. Large families are more expensive to rear. All the research indicates that larger families are at greater risk of falling into the poverty trap. We will deliver on our child benefit targets.
With regard to the PPF targets we must reach, it will cost €46 million to bring the lowest social welfare weekly payment up to €127. The payment of €125 has substantially met this. In terms of social welfare payments generally, every additional allocation of €1 costs €52 million because so many are dependent on income supports. That is not to say the money should not be spent.
The Government will collect that amount from the increases in stamp duty on ATM and credit cards.
Last year the Minister was in a position to increase the fuel allowance. I was not in a position to do so this year but I have considered new ways to assist the elderly. I have established a fuel efficiency initiative which means that €1 million will be provided by my Department to a number of associations and voluntary organisations in Galway and elsewhere which work for the elderly in conserving energy. It will apply to those in receipt of a fuel allowance. Over the next few weeks I will give consideration to how the fund is to be administered.
I hope it will also apply in rural areas.
It will apply to any organisations involved in this area.
Will it be possible to work with the repair and maintenance schemes operated by the health boards?
Yes, although I do not want the health boards to be the main recipients of the funding.
Most health boards have schemes which help the elderly in reducing heating costs. The South-Western Health Board, in which I am involved, has two groups working in this area. The problem with the voluntary groups is that, unfortunately, they do not have the requisite volunteers. One organisation has ceased activity in this area and refers people to the health boards.
I do not want any of the funding to be lost on administration. The rules are flexible to allow for the involvement of voluntary organisations. This is the start of the scheme, but it will have a beneficial effect on those in receipt of fuel allowance.
Each health board area has a different rent subsidy cap depending on the size of rents. The subsidy is much greater in Dublin than it is in, say, Donegal, Leitrim or Sligo. There has always been a maximum subsidy and I have decided to freeze the maximum available this year. There has been no increase in the personal contribution since 1994. It was always based on 10% of the social welfare benefit and I am increasing it to that. I have removed from the system those elderly who are exploited by the private market by increasing the disregard, which means the rent contribution they must make will make no difference.
Will the Minister clarify that while such elderly will still have to make a contribution, there will be no increase imposed on them?
They will still have to make a contribution but it will continue to cost them €10 because I have increased the disallowance by up to €23. There is a formula in deciding the rent subsidy to which people are entitled and it includes a component of disallowances. I have increased the disallowance for the elderly by up to €23, which means that in real terms the changes to the subsidy will not affect them.
Will the Minister consider simplifying the scheme?
I would like to simplify every scheme administered by the Department. The disregard was €13, but it has been increased to €23. That means it does not affect people of pensionable age.
The other issue adverted to is one I will examine. I checked the position and have found that there have always been guidelines in the issuing of rent subsidy. The community welfare officer is the agent working on behalf of my Department. He or she has been given flexibility in the guidelines and these have been incorporated in the regulation. I appreciate that the Deputy has serious concerns and I will examine the situation when I have an opportunity. I will also conduct reviews of decisions made within the confines of my budget.
The amount of money paid in rent subsidy and supplementary welfare allowance is frightening. More than €230 million is made available under SWA, much of it discretionary. I appreciate that flexibility is needed in the context of how CWOs do their work, but I also have to see value for money and ensure it is targeted properly. I will take the opportunity of meeting the chief executives of all health boards to examine the administration of SWA.
There have been numerous reports by my Department on the administration of SWA and how it can best be done, whether it is best for it be linked to the rent charged for county council housing, to give it to another Department or to incorporate it into my Department. Many issues are involved. The position is that an agent of the Department of Health and Children works on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This creates difficulties and is a challenge. I will examine the matter. Many people will not be pleased but I will bite the bullet on it.
In the context of the regulation, the CWOs of health boards retain the discretion to pay rents. That has always been the case and has not changed, even in the context of the regulation. We are trying to achieve uniformity in the application of the scheme throughout the country. That will be a challenge. I reiterate that flexibility will be maintained but if there are concerns about lack of flexibility as a result of the incorporation of the guidelines into the regulation, I will examine them and report back to the committee.
I appreciate there is a specific problem regarding overpayments. I will take the details from the Deputy and examine them. Some issues arise. I have a budget of more than €10 billion. It is my job on behalf of the taxpayers to ensure that budget goes to the right people, that is, those who are entitled to it. As with any system, if people who are not entitled to the money are removed from it, I would have more money to redistribute. I appreciate that mistakes are made by my Department, and when it is verifiable that it has made them, it deals with that. However, there are guidelines and regulations on the administration of the schemes and overpayments.
If I appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts, it would not be pleased because I would not have lived up to a number of the targets in overpayments. We have controls and have increased our control mechanism to ensure that the schemes are not undermined. Overpayments are made in all areas, including mine. The Department has been as flexible as possible - often flexibility is unrealistic in the context of some people's age - especially if people continue to be in receipt of social welfare payments, in which case they may pay €2, €3, €5 or whatever. If they move into the workforce, there is a natural expectation that they will pay more.
There have been cases in the Department of serious fraud which have gone before the courts and which have resulted in custodial sentences. That sanction must be available. In the case of some overpayments, the Department has been as flexible as possible in coming to an agreement. If there are cases where people find repayment difficult, we can examine them on a case by case basis. There must be guidelines, regulations and direction on overpayments. It is incumbent on me and the Secretary General of the Department, who is responsible for finances, to ensure that controls are in place. Someone spoke in the House last night about controls being important and that social welfare inspectors should have increased travel expenses because they could not travel about as much as they wanted. It is important there is balance. I will examine the case raised to see if we can facilitate the person involved.
Another point about rent allowance with which I am sure Deputies are familiar is in the context of the differential rents of county councils. Under SWA no payment is made towards the differential rent scheme because the State has already, through county councils, invested in the provision of accommodation. The differential rent is based on the income we have. It is a matter for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, and someone adverted to that.
The Chairman asked about the national anti-poverty strategy and income adequacies. What we are talking about is achieving €150 in 2002 terms for the lowest rates of social welfare by 2007. I will obtain the permutations of that for the Chairman. The commitment relates only to achieving the €150 baseline.
I cannot accept the amendment because it is perhaps a futile exercise to re-evaluate what I have already done given that NAPS has been reviewed recently and we have a new Government and programme for Government. The Deputy can rest assured that, in the context of ongoing deliberations in the Department, we will examine inflation, the consumer price index and income and social welfare payment adequacy through the many organisations which are funded by me or otherwise, such as the Combat Poverty Agency, the National Economic and Social Council, the Conference of Religious of Ireland and others.
No more than any Minister appearing before a committee, if I had loads of money I could do more, but in the context of what I have, I have made decisions to target. Targets may change next year and we must work in the context of what exists in society. We have key targets to achieve under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, NAPS and the programme for Government. Those are the political decisions which will be made by the Government. That is not to say that what the Opposition says is not taken into consideration.
Another anomaly is where parents of twins receive 150% of the normal rate of children's allowance and those of other multiple births receive 200% of the rate. Parents Of Twins Ireland has sought changes to this for many years. There should be equality in this regard. It is similar to Deputy McGrath's case of three payments of child benefit. Perhaps the Minister will examine that.
The previous Minister succeeded in having councils freeze their rents for people in receipt of social welfare. Will the Minister respond to that? On the free travel pass, there is no public transport in rural areas. Will the Minister consider introducing some type of voucher so that people, especially elderly people with pensions, will have an opportunity to travel? They have the free travel pass but there is no public transport, so it is of no use to them. They must hire taxis to travel into town for their pensions.
Parents of twins receive one and a half times the rate of child benefit, whereas twice the rate is given in cases of other multiple births. This was agreed between the relevant organisations and the previous Government. I have not yet met the organisations in question which appear to be trying to up the ante on this issue. The more child benefit one receives, the more one wants. I will consider the issue in the context of the money available to my Department. I know all about twins as I have twin nieces. I would hate to have to look after them as they are as bad as their aunt.
With regard to the free travel pass, members will be aware of the rural transport initiative introduced by the Government. One of the reasons for the initiative was that some people could not access mainline routes which undermined the point of the free travel pass. I was able to have €500,000 allocated to the rural transport initiative in the budget. The money will be filtered through the ADM which will mean people accepted by the Department of Transport will be able to use the free travel pass under the initiative.
This will only apply in areas where it is operational.
At least it is a start.
I accept that.
It will be difficult to quantify how much the initiative will cost because it has never been done before. I have been advised by the ADM that €500,000 is an adequate sum of money. I announced one such initiative last Friday in Glencolmcille. Because the service we are providing is not economically viable, it is important that people support it. Otherwise, it will not survive.
Will private operators be involved?
They will be part of the project.
This is not a separate scheme.
Private operators will work with ADM and will then get it. Greater liberalisation in transport policy is imminent and will result in greater involvement in the sector by private operators. An interdepartmental committee is examining the issue and will consider the free travel scheme as part of its review. Like everything else, the rural transport initiative will cost money and my Department and the Department of Transport will review its usefulness. I believe many elderly people will avail of it to get to the shop or post office, attend hospital appointments or link in to the mainline routes. The initiative will be operated mainly, if not exclusively, by private operators.
Will rent increases be frozen for people on social welfare?
I cannot do that because it is not within my remit. It is a matter for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government who has responsibility for housing.
The Government or the Minister for Finance can make a decision on this matter. Increasing rent for people on social welfare is wrong and should not happen.
The Deputy is still a councillor.
If the Government had its way, I would not be a councillor. It is a sign of the times that the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party accept we are in hard times, even cancelling their Christmas party which confirms everything I have said.
Amendment put and declared lost.
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 on the implications of abolishing the means test for carer's allowance and introducing a top-up carer's payment for those in receipt of another social welfare payment.".
I hope the Minister will support the amendment, which tries to quantify the number of carers and their role. Some organisations estimate there are 120,000 carers, while others put the figure at 150,000 or 200,000. We need to acknowledge that in the past the role of carers was largely defined by tradition, culture and religious factors incorporating ideas of self-sacrifice, duty and acceptance. These attitudes are changing and carers are emerging as people who want to care for their loved ones, while also having their role in society recognised.
I do not wish to stray from the brief, but I want to quote a carer who wrote:
A carer is constantly on duty, owned by someone else, not supposed to become ill, not able to plan her own day, forever rushing home. A carer joins the library and never gets time to read the books, gets daily papers and just about reads the headlines. A carer enjoys the company of other carers and looking forward to respite.
This is the voice of a carer who is seeking an adequate acknowledgement of the role of carers in society from the Government and the political structure. We have made progress in recent years, but the role carers play and the work they do on behalf of the State make it imperative on all of us to put their role on a statutory basis. We must find ways of helping them, acknowledge the role they play and offer them a realistic payment. Some of them work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We must also recognise that some people in receipt of social welfare benefits work 24 hour days for their loved ones. My call is not confined to Opposition Deputies, but is shared by all elected Members of the House.
There are more than 33,000 people with dementia, 3,500 with multiple sclerosis, nearly 6,000 people with Parkinson's disease, more than 20,000 with intellectual disabilities and many more who are confined to wheelchairs, all of whom are being cared for. Much work needs to be done to ensure carers get a proper deal.
The Minister raised the possibility of holding talks with the carers. While I have no difficulty with this, rejection of the amendment would signal a very negative approach. The amendment is part of an evolving mechanism aimed at ensuring that the role of carers is recognised and the Legislature does something about it.
The means testing of carer's allowance is a very contentious issue and we must consider the implications of not abolishing the practice. In my experience, the people who provide care either automatically come within the guidelines or are on the fringes. High rollers do not provide this level of care. Carers are the unsung heroes of our society. They offer an invaluable service which - in view of the small financial rewards they receive - they do not provide for the money. They save the State a huge amount in terms of resources. It is short-sighted to means test them.
Carers want to look after ill people at home and recipients of care also want to be at home. There is a danger that some will become frustrated with the system and select the easy option of sending those requiring care to nursing homes or institutions. When that happens, the State must pay far more. In view of this, consideration should be given to relaxing the means testing provisions. If carers are given a proper deal, patients will get a better deal and it will reduce the dependency syndrome prevalent in society. People will take leave from work to care for sick relatives.
This issue is dear to my heart because I see so many carers doing a marvellous job on behalf of their loved ones, be it their parents, in-laws or neighbours. They are not appreciated as much as they should be. I accept that the Minister has a limited budget at her disposal. However, it is extraordinary that those who cannot be cared for at home are on a waiting list for subvention.
The Minister is a member of the Cabinet, which has overall responsibility for caring for the aged. If an elderly person cannot obtain a subvention to go to a nursing home or is unable to get home help because of the lack of money, the best care they can get is in the home provided by a relative or, if possible, a neighbour. In view of this, it is necessary to provide whatever aid can be allowed within current financial constraints.
A couple of years ago I encountered the case of a person living at home looking after her mother-in-law. The carer's husband had died of cancer and had been in a low paid job, so she was eligible for the carer's allowance. The mother-in-law had an old age pension. When the carer's husband died she was transferred from her carer's allowance to a widow's pension, which did not replace the loss of her husband's salary. If she had not been obliged to care for her mother-in-law, the woman would have been able to take up full-time employment while retaining her widow's pension. This illustrates a major anomaly in the social welfare system. If those who hold a widow's pension are able to secure full-time employment, they should be allowed a carer's allowance if they must stay at home to care for a loved one. A person in full-time employment is entitled to receipt of the carer's allowance if they take leave to stay at home in such circumstances. My party's general election manifesto proposed that, in these situations, people should be entitled to half their social welfare entitlements in addition to half a carer's allowance. If this cannot be done now it should be given sympathetic consideration in the future.
Carers provide a tremendous service. They ensure that people do not have to be looked after by the State at a massive cost. A contribution should be made towards that.
In the debate on Second Stage I praised the Minister for her caring approach. I have personal experience of the carer's allowance. My mother died two years ago at the age of 93 years and, beforehand, my wife had looked after her. She did not qualify for the carer's allowance because, as a farmer, my income made me ineligible. At the time in question, the disregard was £100 whereas it is now €420. We have come a long way and I urge the Minister to continue in this manner.
I disagree with discarding the means test in its entirety because wealthy people should not be entitled to carer's allowance. However, the disregard should continue to increase because the allowance is very important. It gives carers dignity in that it puts some value on their contribution.
Home-based subvention should be considered as a complement to the carer's allowance. This would mean that those entitled to a subvention to a nursing home would receive the same subvention if they stay at home. This would also create competition in the sector and would be fairer to those who stay at home. Most would prefer to stay at home for as long as possible.
I understand the rule that a person is only entitled to one social welfare payment at any given time. However, when funding improves, the Minister should consider the kind of situation outlined by Deputy Crawford.
I am a member of a family of ten. When my father died, the eldest child was only 15 years of age so we depended on social welfare. We have come a long way since then. There have been huge increases in social welfare payments. The size of the Department's budget illustrates the contribution people make to those most in need.
I am not convinced by the proposal regarding the means test. We are fortunate that so many carers, young and old, make a contribution at great sacrifice. Substantial progress has been made in assisting their efforts. Given the financial constraints this year, I am pleased the Minister decided to concentrate resources on the elderly and the young. Carers save the State huge amounts of money by looking after people at home, which is difficult for them. I support the view that we should continue down that road. I would not be in favour of the abolition of the means test because I am not convinced that that is the way forward.
The disregard for the means test for the carer's allowance in many cases is about money. In this society, both the husband and the wife must work to pay for mortgages and everything else and also look after an elderly parent.
Elderly parents want to die in their own homes. From the day they are put into a State home they seem to go downhill fairly quickly. Most people would like to be cared for in their own home by their own people if at all possible although we know that is not always possible.
I do not agree with the previous speakers. There are over 120,000 carers and there are only between 20,000 and 23,000 people getting carer's allowance. Thousands of people are providing a service for the State and for their families. This is not about money, it is about recognition that they are doing a job.
When I see somebody coming into my clinic, I know that they are caring for a sick person because they are stressed. It is a 24 hour job, seven days a week. We have all listened to people who have given their lives to their mothers and fathers and have stayed at home to look after them. They get stressed and depressed. When people apply for the carer's allowance, their partners' incomes are taken into account. In the context of the disregard for the carer's allowance, the Department must look at the issue of recognition.
I have heard the point about millionaires but this does not concern millionaires. Millionaires will put elderly relatives into nursing homes because they can afford to do so. This is about people who want to stay at home. This is about sons or daughters who want to look after their loved ones. All they want is a little recognition for the job they do. If they do not qualify according to the means test, there should be some other recognition of their work. If it is only €50 or €60, there should be something which says "thank you" for doing a job for the State. We are all aware of what it would cost if these elderly people went into nursing homes. It used to cost about £1,000 to look after a person in a public nursing home. If the Department gives somebody €50, €60 or €70 to do that job, it will save taxpayers a great deal of money. The time has come to recognise these people.
When people who are not used to the social welfare system apply for the carer's allowance, they must wait a long time to get it. They are not used to that if they have worked in the private sector. These people who have given up work are entitled to hold onto their social insurance stamps and receive the carer's allowance.
The Department must become more efficient in issuing carer's allowance. It must be provided faster because the waiting list is too long.
The Minister has probably 50 or 60 payment schemes to look after and the most important, as far as I am concerned, is the carer's allowance. If, in her term as Minister, she could be the one who moved this forward, then every Member of the Oireachtas would certainly speak favourably about her.
Like Deputy Callanan, I also have personal experience of it although I did not receive the allowance and I did not look for it. I know there is a huge need for recognition among people who care for relatives in the home.
The Minister should set a standard that she will meet with the carers' organisations at national level and develop a relationship with them to see what needs to be done. It may not be about money. It may be about other aspects of social welfare, one of which was mentioned by Deputy Ring.
Lately I came across a case where a person gave up work to care for her mother and immediately she encountered major problems in getting the carer's allowance. This should not happen. If there is a record of a person giving up work to look after a parent as a carer, then the mechanism should be in place to ensure that the payment is made quickly to avoid creating problems which increase the worries of the person concerned.
As others have said, I honestly believe it is not all about money. It is about recognition and moving it forward to see what mechanisms can be put in place to alleviate people's worries and concerns. I know from personal experience that it is nothing short of a 24 hour job and people want to do it. Families want the people to be at home and obviously the people themselves want to be at home.
There is a need to move it on at a pace not achieved heretofore. We have looked at this issue negatively over the years because the Department knew people would want to stay in their own homes and knew the families would look after them, but now there is a need to drive the process forward. I am looking forward to the Minister's stewardship of this matter and to seeing her advance the cause of carers.
First, it is important that we appreciate the fact that there are so many carers and that we appreciate their contribution and empathise with their difficulties. In that regard, we introduced the carer's allowance in the first place as an income support for people on low income. Two years ago my predecessor and colleague, Deputy Dermot Ahern, introduced the carer's benefit in recognition of the fact that so many working people had to leave the workplace to care for their relatives.
I appreciate that Deputy Ring raised this issue recently in a parliamentary question. Since January, the Department has received 1,195 applications under the benefit scheme. At the time - the question was asked in October and therefore I assume the figure has decreased again - there were 200 claims on the books. Those claims are being processed as quickly as possible.
In the past year the number of applications has increased by over 50%. Given the high level of awareness of the scheme, perhaps people should apply a few weeks earlier so that they would get the payment more quickly. We may look at that.
As I have said previously, I have raised this issue internally in the Department to try to ensure that claims are processed as quickly as possible. There are a number of difficulties in the context of carer's allowance and carer's benefit but they are tremendous schemes which have progressed over the past number of years.
This year I made a concerted effort to increase the income disregard. It has been increased to €210 for a single person and €420 for a couple. That will mean that an additional 1,700 will qualify for the scheme and 2,800 existing carers will get an increase in their payment.
In addition, as the committee will be aware, carers will also get the household package. I appreciate that people are not entitled to a dual payment. Often the advice given by my officials is that one should look at whether one scheme benefits a family more than another. Often carer's benefit may prove more beneficial to the person, especially if he or she is under 66, because they will also be eligible for the household package - free electricity and free television licence - which is also very beneficial to the household in the context of the caring.
There is a great deal of discussion about the abolition of the means test. In order that I will not be reminded of this over the next five years, the programme for Government specifically states that we will expand the income limits for the carer's allowance so that all those on the average industrial income can qualify. I have moved towards including an additional 1,700 - the agreement with the carers' associations was 5,000 - and towards implementing significant increases in the value of the respite grant for carers. This year we have provided an additional €100 towards the respite grant. That is a recognition of the carer, in particular, in allowing him or her an opportunity to take a break. There are 21,000 carers in receipt of the allowance, which is an increase of over 120% since 1997.
If we were to look at the disregard, according to the information available - one of the problems is we do not know the number of carers - it would take another €168 million per year to abolish the means test. I have decided to increase the disregard and the respite grant. My Department previously provided support for the carer's schemes through voluntary and community grants, which have been transferred to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Respite care and resource centres are supported by that Department and the Department of Health and Children.
The other issue that has been raised is long-term care and whether we need to amend the carer's allowance scheme to become a home subvention scheme. A study will be completed by my Department very quickly and it will be deliberated on by the committee. We will examine the future financing of long-term care. Carers often look after people - for example, those who may have suffered heart attacks - for short periods before returning to work. Despite the scarcity of resources, I was able to increase the disregard and bring more people into the carer's allowance scheme. I would like to progress that.
I agree with everybody's sentiments, even if they want the abolition of the means test. This allowance is targeted at those who need it. There are people who may pass on their responsibilities to the State and, as a society, we must ask ourselves if that is the right thing to do. We appreciate that carers have families and jobs and may have other difficulties in their own households. What type of society do we want? Eighty years ago people did not get married because they stayed at home to look after their elderly parents and, as a consequence, bore grudges and had difficulties in their lives. That was not good for society. Will we go full circle and say the State will be entirely responsible for something that is our own responsibility? It is in recognition of that responsibility that we provide income support through the carer's allowance.
Everyone agrees that what is being done is absolutely tremendous. People, even when they were in bad health themselves, have often made the choice to support loved ones who could have been cared for more easily in an institution. We would like people to be in a position, where possible, to make a choice so that if the decision is made to move a person into institutional care, they can at least say they had that choice. People who need to be cared for, therefore, could stay at home.
I acknowledge the issue raised in the amendment. I will present a report to the committee that will reflect many of the issues that have been raised by it. If a change is made to one scheme run by the Department, it has to be done for every scheme. If a top-up is applied to one scheme, it will then have to be applied to 20,000 other schemes. However, it is a priority of my party and myself that we should support carers and bring more of them into the carer's allowance scheme. We will review it in the context of the financing of long-term care in Ireland.
Will the Minister accept the amendment?
Top-ups will not be applied, but I could return to the committee in the context of the study before the Minister for Health and Children and me. Those issues will be raised.
There is an anomaly in the respite care grant, which is a valuable payment. There are cases where individuals are in receipt of the carer's allowance, but their loved ones die after a few weeks. I had a case where an individual was in receipt of carer's allowance for two and a half years but her loved one died 24 hours too soon and she was refused the respite care grant. It involved a family in desperate circumstances and I made a plea to have it paid, but my words fell on deaf ears.
Is the Deputy saying there was no need for caring?
The person was on carer's allowance for two and a half years and their loved one died in April.
The grant runs from June to June.
It is assessed on 5 June. If the person had lived 12 or 24 hours longer, the widow would have received the respite care grant. She felt aggrieved that, having cared for a person for so long, she did not received the grant. However, her neighbour who had only been in receipt of the carer's allowance for a few months received it.
Perhaps——
We have dates.
I accept that there are rules, but one can go too far in scenarios such as this.
I will speak to the Deputy after the meeting.
My party and I favour the abolition of the means test for carer's allowance. Although the Minister might have a different view, the amendment provides for a report on the implications of abolishing the carer's allowance and provided a top-up carer's payment. It is vital in the context of pursuing this issue that the amendment should be accepted. Much of her contribution would go a long way towards meeting its objective. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment until Report Stage so that the Minister can consider and progress this issue.
I am not an expert on legislation, but I see how this was accepted in the first instance because it has a financial implication while referring to a report. It would be futile, therefore, in the context of the legislation. I am not being facetious because it is important that we should have an opportunity to discuss the issues. The Chairman will agree that is what is being done and I also would have done so if I was in Opposition. Realistically, I am not convinced of its usefulness in the legislation but I reiterate we will consider all the issues raised in the context of long-term care. When the report is launched at the beginning of next year, the committee could discuss it and the recommendations it contains and perhaps refine what has been proposed. However, I cannot accept the amendment.
I will withdraw the amendment so that the Minister might review the issues before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.-(1) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, issue a statement to both Houses of the Oireachtas, at intervals not exceeding two months duration, on the latest statistical information on the effects of inflation on the measures contained in this Act.
(2) Whereupon such a statement being made, the Minister shall prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of taking measures to compensate social welfare recipients for the effects of inflation.".
We touched on this earlier. I intend to table the amendment on Report Stage. We must examine the effects of the budget because they are serious and people are feeling the pressure. Whatever increases people on social welfare received will be taken away by increases in costs in other areas. Not only that, they will also eat into their existing payments. Some local authorities have not yet struck a rate and they will be seeking ways and means of taking more money from people on low incomes. There will have to be discussions with the voluntary groups which deal with the weakest in society and who are unhappy with the budget and the increases in costs which have taken and are taking place on an almost daily basis.
We must meet again to discuss this to ensure the weakest in society are not penalised because of bad management on the part of the Government. It is wrong that the weak in society pay. The Minister for Finance could and should have found further resources to try to prop them up. Instead, whatever few euro they received in an increase are being taken from them through inflation, price increases and so on. I will not continue to speak on this, although I could, because I have already made these points on Second Stage. The Minister should bring her report before the committee by March so that we can see what is happening.
I support this because the situation is worsening on a daily basis. The increase in rent allowance for those on social welfare has been capped, county council rents and refuse charges must be considered and the television licence fee has been increased, all of which will impact further on those on social welfare who received the €6 increase. It is important we have a mechanism to review the position because that increase has been eaten up at this stage. That is not the Minister's fault but is a fault generally. Those in rural areas have faced increases in the running costs of a car, such as insurance, tax and diesel. Major changes are made on a daily basis and it is important the position is reviewed to avoid people being left in a difficult position. I support my colleague.
I must be in the most progressive county council in the country, South Dublin, because we have adopted our rate and we are very happy.
I have indicated what the Minister for Finance has said and on that basis we have taken inflation to be at 4.8%, although it may fluctuate. Some 0.6% of that is attributable to cigarettes and alcohol, not matters of necessity.
No, but the only thing the poor creatures have is an odd cigarette.
The increase in personal rates for widows and widowers over 66 is 7.6% and it is 6.8% for the elderly, which is well above the 4.8% inflation rate. Any decisions made will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and addressed in the context of future budgets. My Department is not inclined to take a view on this other than to base our figures on the 4.8% inflation rate adverted to by the Minister for Finance.
I will table the amendment again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I thank the Minister and her officials for attending the session and granting us a reasonably expansive discussion on the amendments. I also thank my colleagues for their ingenuity in tabling the amendments and the Minister for replying comprehensively.
On behalf of my officials, I thank the committee for facilitating the Bill as quickly as possible given the necessity to have it passed by Christmas. If we do not have the opportunity on Report and Final Stages, I wish the Chairman and the committee a happy Christmas and successful new year. I hope we will have a fruitful partnership.