Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Mar 1998

Vol. 488 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Bill, 1998: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 7:

In page 9, before line 1, to insert the following:

"8. —The Minister shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay before Dáil Éireann, a detailed report on the implications of the extension of the Family Income Supplement to the families of persons who are self-employed.".

—(Deputy J. O'Keeffe).

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

This amendment deals with the question of extending the family income supplement to the families of persons who are self-employed. As I stated earlier, one of the few bouquets I would toss at the Minister in respect of the Bill is that he agreed to make family income supplement payable on the basis of net income. However, in doing so he discriminated against the self-employed who are not entitled to family income supplement. I am not speaking about the Michael Smurfits or the Tony O'Reillys of this world. I am talking about small farmers or shopkeepers or those involved in the service industry in a small way who are merely surviving. If those people have a family they are as much entitled to a family income supplement as a PAYE worker.

While the corner shop may be threatened by large supermarkets, the new concept of work will involve more self-employment. As well as encouraging people to take up PAYE work, State policy should also encourage people to take up self-employment which is the route to work for many people. The world has changed and the nature of work has also changed. The PAYE job was the solution of the 1960s, but the way to confront unemployment in the new millennium will be different. There are already more possibilities open to people involved in self-employment. If we are to encourage people to take up self-employment surely they should qualify for family income supplement.

If the self-employed are unable to provide for their families they will give up work and go on the dole. From a social point of view, it would be wise to include the self-employed in the scheme and there would also be a return to the State in that it would retain people in self-employment or encourage others to take it up. A person with eight children who is on the dole would need to get fairly remunerative self-employment to make it attractive for him to go off the dole, but the family income supplement would encourage such people to do so.

I urge the Minister, having gone half way and introduced this discriminatory measure, to go the full way as soon as possible. I do not expect him to table an amendment immediately. However, if the merits of the case are agreed on all fronts and we accept it is the right way forward I hope it will be introduced as soon as possible, whether by the Minister's Government or by a Fine Gael Government. In case this Minister is around for the next budget and social welfare Bill, I am putting forward this proposal now.

Mr. McGrath

I support the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Deputy O'Keeffe. Family income supplement should be available to the self-employed. It is unsustainable that a Government Department should discriminate against the self-employed by excluding them from benefits. The Revenue Commissioners will accept statements of accounts from the self-employed as being their actual income, but its sister Department, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs will not accept those figures. It will not pay them family income supplement because it believes they are fiddling the system. By denying the self-employed the family income supplement, the Department is telling those people it does not trust them.

It was stated earlier that support for families with children is vital. Family income supplement revolves around children. The payment is based on one's income and the number of children in the family and is targeted at families on low income. The scheme has been very successful. I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows people in the Cavan-Monaghan constituency who have stayed at work because of the family income supplement.

Unfortunately, however, there are a number of anomalies in the system. A few days ago I met a person who told me her husband takes home approximately £105 per week and receives unemployment assistance for the days he does not work. Their total income is £220 per week, which includes the family income supplement. They have three children, one of whom has a disability and needs constant care, but they do not qualify for a domiciliary care allowance because he attends a school for the deaf from Monday to Friday. They are repaying £120 per week on a structured payments system to clear debts they owe. She went back to work two days a week and receives £40, but as a result the family income supplement was cut by £40. Therefore, there has been no net increase in the family budget. I could not tell her how to improve the family's position, but I am sure the Minister's officials could devise a system to help families who are willing to work and anxious to make ends meet.

We must address the anomaly whereby for every additional £1 one earns, the family income supplement is cut by £1. If one gets a £10 increase, 40 per cent automatically goes on tax, the £6 family income supplement is forfeited, PRSI has be paid with the result that there is a net loss at certain income levels. I am straying from the amendment which deals with paying FIS to the self-employed.

There was a lengthy debate on FIS and the self-employed on Committee Stage. Some members of the Minister's party, one of whom is a Minister of State, strongly supported the idea that FIS should be paid to the self-employed. It would be interesting to hear her stance on this occasion. While I realise this is expensive it will have to be provided for in the context of equality in the longer term, as mentioned by Deputy De Rossa. If an equality case was brought forward from the point of view of the self-employed, the courts would find it unsustainable. Will the Minister examine this issue carefully as it will become a major issue in the next number of years?

Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin

I support this amendment. While all amendments, if accepted, would cost a great deal of money that does not take from the fact that we have to make a point. Deputy O'Keeffe talked about small farmers. I understand intimately what he was talking about since the majority of farmers in my constituency are in the same boat. I represent a constituency that depends a great deal on tourism, which is seasonal. Share fishermen who are seasonal workers are entitled to some social welfare. There are a number of small shopkeepers and cafe-restaurant owners in Sneem, Waterville and so on who open their doors from Easter to September. The people we are speaking about are willing to work. We are not talking about allocating a social welfare payment to people who are not willing to work.

At our local authority meeting yesterday we had a discussion about rural Ireland. I live in a town where it is impossible for young people to buy a house. We are anxious that our people will live in small rural communities to keep them alive and ensure they are not burdened with huge mortgages. Will the Minister take these views into account and examine the existing anomalies regarding family income supplement for the self-employed? There is a myth that when we talk about the self-employed we are talking about big business people. These people who cannot afford accountants are honest and willing to keep their books in order. The local social welfare officer will be well aware of their business. These people are better off having their own business and giving some work to their children which keeps them off the streets. While I commend the Minister for improvements in the family income supplement, we have to go further.

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

Listening to Deputy Moynihan-Cronin reminded me of the envy I always have of representatives from Kerry South. I come from a constituency in the North-east where we would be pleased to have even half the tourist industry of Kerry South. It is a source of great business to the constituency which does not go to many other constituencies.

I thank Deputy O'Keeffe for his acknowledgement of the move in the budget in relation to FIS on a net income basis. One of the main reasons for this was that it was the key commitment in Partnership 2000. While I acknowledge that FIS and the self-employed have been to the fore, particularly with the farming community, there was not a similar commitment in Partnership 2000. The issue that addressed the social partners in this respect was FIS on net income basis. On Committee Stage I was asked to re-examine the estimate of costs because Deputy O'Keeffe made some strong arguments in relation to take-up and those at whom this would be targeted. I have asked the Department to examine the whole issue. The figure I produced of £30 million per annum was based on a 100 per cent take-up which would be in addition to the existing expenditure involved in providing UA to self-employed persons, whose income falls below the rate of UA appropriate to the family circumstances. The cost implications and the actual estimate are being examined. I have asked my Department to examine the issue in the wider context of the range of income supports available to self-employed persons and small farmers, to determine whether the extension of FIS is a more appropriate route to meet the needs of those concerned. In the case of small farmers it is necessary to take into account the range of other supports provided to them by the Department of Agriculture and Food, which are not inconsiderable.

Following examination of that issue I will come back to FIS in the context of the unemployed in a budgetary context. While we have had some discussion of the whole issue on Committee and Report Stages I can look at a number of areas but ultimately I have to prioritise the finance available and obviously something will have to give. A number of issues are to the fore and these will also have to be looked at

In relation to the case instanced by Deputy McGrath, will he please produce the details? Family income supplement is paid for a 52 week period and is not affected by changes in family circumstances in that period but it may be affected when it is reassessed at a later stage.

Mrs. Barnes

I will not take up the time of the House by repeating what has been said by Deputies. The figures produced by the Minister were based on a 100 per cent take-up of FIS. When that is combined with the fact that people who are currently on family income supplement will probably move on to better and higher paid employment and will no longer need it, there might be room for flexibility. The low take up of a supplement that is so badly needed must be a matter of concern to the Minister. People must be in great need just to qualify for it.

Mr. McGrath

The Minister referred to small farmers who are in receipt of unemployment assistance or income support if they are on low wages. It has been brought to my attention that some farmers who traditionally received the "farmers' dole" are now encountering difficulty in receiving such assistance. As they are not permanently available for work they are being removed from the scheme. This matter must be dealt with.

Technically, such farmers are not available for work in so far as they must do a certain amount of farm work every day. However, their income is very low and, in the absence of unemployment assistance, where else will they receive supplementary income to give them a sustainable wage? Perhaps the Minister would ask his officials to examine this matter.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

A good case has been made for the approach I advocate. If the Minister had his way and enough money, he probably would be glad to agree to it because there is discrimination in this area. I accept it was not included in Partnership 2000 but it is the next stage in the completion of the family income supplement process. The cost will not be the figure quoted because in the PAYE sector the take up has been low. It used to be about a third and I doubt that it has reached a half yet.

With regard to the point made by Deputy McGrath, I have been concerned for a long time about the odd way in which the small farmers' assistance is paid. How can a farmer be expected to run a farm and still be available for work? My colleague, Deputy Creed, has raised this matter on a number of occasions. It has been raised a number of times in his constituency as some of his constituents have been refused assistance. This amendment might be the way forward.

The amendment does not simply refer to the traditional self-employed. Under no circumstances does it apply to the well off self-employed because there is an income limit. It applies to the new approach to work which will involve more and more people becoming self-employed. From that point of view, it should be economic as well as social policy to proceed with the scheme. I will not push the amendment to a vote but I hope we can return to the issue at another time.

Mr. D. Ahern

One speaker spoke about getting the unemployed back to work and into self-employment. The most successful scheme has been the back-to-work allowance scheme under which a substantial number of people have come off the dole and are now self-employed. It is a very successful scheme.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

They might get married after a couple of years and have children. That is when they have the problems.

Mr. D. Ahern

There have been suggestions that the take up of family income supplement has been historically low. That might well be the case but it would be a source of concern if such a scheme, which is designed for people on low income, were available and was not being availed of. On a money basis, the take up is approximately 60 per cent and on the basis of numbers the take up is 40 per cent. That is quite low.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

What does that mean?

Mr. D. Ahern

On a numbers basis, 40 per cent of those who are estimated to be entitled to the supplement take it up. It is probably the best measure.

Concern has been expressed for some time about smallholders' dole. The concern is not so much about the way in which people are informed they are not available for work but because of means assessments of capital which are occurring as a result of recent changes. However, that is the nature of being involved with the Department and with a scheme such as smallholders' dole. People must account for their other income. Personnel in my Department are doing their duty by ensuring that taxpayers' money is being spent wisely and properly and that it is going to the right people. I doubt that people are being unfairly treated. What is happening in that scheme is the same as what has happened in a number of other schemes run by the Department. People are being subjected to a reassessment of means.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 13 is related to amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 9, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"10. -Not later than 6 months from the passing of this Act, the Minister shall prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need to amend and extend the Social Welfare Free Schemes as they apply to widows and widowers.".

I was delighted to have been a member of the Government which introduced the widower's pension. Earlier in this debate, I spoke about injustices to women. The absence of a widower's pension was a great injustice to men.

Widowed people suffer huge financial loss on the death of their spouses. More often than not, they are left to rear a family alone and are not prepared for the consequences of what is usually the sudden death of a spouse. If they have young children, they might be obliged to give up their jobs. Everybody knows of widowed people who had to give up full-time jobs to look after a number of children following the death of their spouse.

The allocation of free schemes, such as the free travel pass, free electricity allowance and free telephone rental, to such families would make a huge difference to their lives. Even if the Minister allocated the schemes until their families were reared, it would be of great benefit. Widows who might never have worked outside the home and whose husbands were the breadwinners are at a serious loss. Often they have a small, non-contributory pension on which to run a household and rear children. They not only suffer the loss of their spouse but also a halving of their income.

I do not seek the immediate introduction of such a measure. However, I hope the Minister will continue the previous Government's progress in this area and commission a detailed report on amending and extending the social welfare free schemes to widowed people. I presume it would cost a great deal of money but it would be money well spent. I know of widows and widowers struggling to live on the survivor's pension at a difficult time and who wish to work but cannot afford to pay a babysitter. Will the Minister accept the amendment and continue the good work done by his predecessor on behalf of survivors.

Mrs. Barnes

I agree with Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. The announcement that widowers would qualify was widely welcomed. The extension of the free schemes — telephone rental, electricity and travel — would mean so much to survivors, particularly to those with young children who have to make extraordinary sacrifices. Very often what widows need is practical help. I was made aware of this through the widows and widowers association. In the maintenance of the house for instance, widows need to avail of the services of a handyman to change window panes or fix tiles on the roof, tasks performed by their partners and which they took for granted. This is an expensive process.

Mr. D. Ahern

Now we know where we stand in society.

Mrs. Barnes

We are also trying to encourage men to become more involved on the domestic side.

The telephone provides a lifeline, particularly for those who are housebound. The extension of the telephone rental allowance would allow them to stay in touch. One of the most inventive and innovative schemes ever introduced was the free travel scheme as it gave pensioners independence. The extension of the scheme to widows and widowers would mean so much, particularly to those with children of school-going age who have to make extraordinary sacrifices and who need special support.

Mr. McGrath

The amendments are similar. Hence, I will have no difficulty in supporting them.

Widows and widowers are the forgotten people. They are not treated fairly by the State. They get a raw deal. I know of a man with three small children whose wife died in tragic circumstances following a short illness. He earns about £25,000 per year. My colleague, Deputy Barnes, spoke about the things we take for granted. As he had to continue working, he had to find someone to look after his children, a task performed by his wife and which he took for granted. This was an added expense. What was the response of the State? He had to pay an additional £50 per week in income tax. I take my hat off to the Government for increasing in the case of widows with children the special allowance in the first year after bereavement to £5,000 which will be phased out over a five year period. It should continue to be available for as long as their children remain dependent on them. We are talking about a relatively small number of people who are extremely vulnerable.

These are minor proposals. A widow or widower with dependent children would not use the free travel pass very often. On the free electricity allowance, on a cold winter's night they would know they could be more generous when it comes to heating. On the free telephone rental allowance, Deputy Barnes made an important point. The telephone provides a lifeline. Widows and widowers would know that there was somebody they could talk to and contact if they needed a helping hand.

We are placing many demands on the Minister but his heart is in the right place. I hope he will be able to respond to many of the proposals included on our wish list.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I support the amendments as there is a need to provide greater support for widows. There was a good discussion on the radio this morning, which was chaired by a political correspondent based in Leinster House, on the needs of working wives. I appreciate that working wives have their problems and difficulties but widows deserve much more than we give them. It is easy to make demands but an exception should be made for widows when it comes to social welfare payments. My colleague, Deputy McGrath, said the Minister's heart is in the right place. Widows have a lonely life. Anything that can be done to provide them with some comfort should be done. The Minister will not be able to solve the problem in one year but I hope he will bear in mind what has been said in their defence.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Widows should be given priority when it comes to the provision of support. There are approximately 200,000 widowed persons in the State, two-thirds of whom are aged 65 years and over and one-quarter of whom are liable for income tax. In many ways we are talking about people who are not exceptionally well treated. In some instances, they are badly treated. As mentioned by my colleagues, following the loss of their partner, there is a substantial loss of family income. The purpose of this amendment is to highlight the position of those in that category and to bring it home to the Minister and his officials that widows should be given reasonable consideration when there is largesse to be dispensed. I have no doubt that some of our proposals will cost money and I am sure the Minister is justified when he says he does not have sufficient finance. If he does not have it now, he should think about them the next time he has money to spend.

Mr. D. Ahern

As announced in the budget, people in receipt of invalidity pension, disability allowance and blind person's pension who transfer to certain other social welfare pensions, for example, widow's and widower's contributory pensions, will retain their entitlement to free schemes. This measure will extend the current arrangements which allow for invalidity pensioners who transfer either to retirement pension at the age of 65 or widow's and widower's contributory pension at the age of 60 or over to retain their free schemes.

The cost of extending the free schemes to all widows and widowers not currently qualified would entail additional expenditure of £25 million. I gave the figures on Committee Stage of how it is broken down. There are 97,340 widows and widowers on contributory pension of whom approximately 7.5 per cent are men. They have 16,600 child dependants. There are 1,680 widows and widowers in receipt of one parent family payment and they had 3,325 child dependants as of December 1997. There are 18,786 people on widow's non-contributory pension.

We looked at the situation in relation to widows in the budget. Approximately two thirds of widows and widowers — 65 per cent or 73,000 — will benefit from the £5 increase payable from the first week of June and 38,000 will benefit from the £3 increase per week. The total cost of these increases is £15.7 million this year and £26 million in a full year. There was also another slight amendment to the means test for widow's or widower's non-contributory pension by providing that rental income from a person living with the pensioner will be disregarded.

As a recognition of the difficulties experienced by people when they lose a spouse, the Minister for Finance gave generous tax allowances in the budget. Apart from widening the tax bands, he also introduced a widowed parent bereavement allowance. The existing special bereavement allowance for widowed parents in the tax years following the tax year of bereavement is £1,500 in year one, £1,000 in year two, £500 in year three and nil thereafter. This allowance in the budget is being increased to £5,000 in year one, £4,000 in year two, £3,000 in year three, £2,000 in year four, £1,000 in year five and nil thereafter with effect from 6 April 1998. This is of substantial assistance to widowed people, albeit those who are paying tax.

One of the compelling reasons the payment was increased by £5, particularly for people over 66 years of age, was to give them an added bonus in their payment. I accept the convincing arguments made by the Deputies but we can only work within the finances available at any particular time. I cannot wave a magic wand and fix it in one budget. Former Ministers for Social Welfare have also had to address this issue. The £5 and £3 increases for widows and widowers were substantial. Other small initiatives in my area as well as the tax bereavement allowance introduced by the Minister for Finance will help in this regard.

Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin

I thank the Minister for his reply. My amendment deals with the extension of free schemes to widows and widowers. While I accept that improvements have been made, I ask the Minister to keep widows and widowers at the top of his agenda in the context of the next budget. If a widow or widower had the free telephone allowance, it might make the difference between keeping in touch with their family or not. The free telephone allowance is a luxury. I do not expect the Minister to deliver on this tonight but it is important to keep widows and widowers at the top of his agenda when money becomes available. The Celtic tiger should mean it is possible to introduce at least one allowance. I ask the Minister to consider extending the free schemes particularly to young widows and widowers who have children.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 9 is out of order.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and both may be discussed together.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 11, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

"12. —The Minister shall consider the implications of——

(a) establishing a £1,000 Carers' Respite Allowance payable to all carers including those who are presently excluded by the means test, and

(b) increasing the present weekly income disregard from £150 to £200 per week,

and shall report to Dáil Éireann on this matter within 3 months of the passing of this Act.".

Many people were disappointed by the budget, the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill, but those who suffered the greatest disappointment were the carers. Because many politicians listened and agreed to the reasonable case made by them, they expected a positive answer. The verdict of the Carers Association on the budget is significant. It stated that there was an unprecedented sense of hurt by carers at the proposals concerning them in the budget. That is why these amendments were tabled. Carers are getting a raw deal. I am pleased there is a carer's allowance. In an earlier manifestation I was involved in discussions about the introduction of that allowance as opposed to the old prescribed relative allowance. The problem is the carer's allowance is far too limited. It is estimated that approximately 30,000 carers provide full time in-home care for loved ones 24 hours a day, every day of the year, with no holidays, no sick pay or benefits or entitlements. Approximately 10,000 of the 30,000 carers qualify for the carer's allowance. It is not fair that two-thirds of carers do not qualify for any benefit. Families and individuals who provide care for their dependant family members deserve State support. In many ways one could argue the State saves significantly by not having to provide residential care. I know of many cases where relatives, who are not even direct descendants, say, nieces or nephews have cared for relatives in their homes in situations of great hardship. That is to be commended, but it must also be supported. It is not supported sufficiently.

While every home situation varies, there is a common thread of additional effort, expense and hardship in caring for an infirm or disabled individual. The Fine Gael proposal is that we should recognise that and introduce a recognition payment, a carer's respite allowance, which should be paid to all carers. I do not propose the elimination of the conditions applying to the carer's allowance. I refer to the carer who looks after a person who needs full time care and attention and is excluded from the carer's allowance on restrictive means grounds. There are many people in that category. They could be disqualified on grounds of means from another social welfare pension. The carer could have a widow's pension and be barred from qualifying for benefit in respect of the relative for whom she is caring. It is not unreasonable that we should recognise this position by introducing a £1,000 respite carer's allowance payable to all carers including those who are currently excluded by the means test. The case for that allowance can be made on social and on economic grounds. It would encourage people to keep a relative at home and thus avoid the expense of residential care which could be up to £10,000 per year. That proposed allowance is justified on all grounds.

Another aspect of the case I am making is to try to encourage more people to qualify for the existing carer's allowance by relaxing the means test. I am in agreement with the case made by the Carers Association which suggests that the disregard of income for the carer's allowance should be increased from £150 per week to £200 per week. That reduction would enable an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 carers to qualify for the allowance and the figure may be higher and some might qualify for a reduced rate of allowance. The cost involved for the Exchequer would be relatively low and it would provide additional direct income support to carers.

Carers will continue their work until they are properly looked after and we have a duty and responsibility to them. Fine words do not butter bread. It is good that their work is recognised, but we must provide the butter for the bread, even in the modest quantity I proposed. An allowance of £1,000 per year is only £20 a week and that is not too much to expect for those who are providing such an important service not only for the aged and the infirm but for this country.

Mr. McGrath

Deputy O'Keeffe has made a strong case to reward carers who provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year. They do great work, but are our unsung heroes and many of them are excluded from financial reward from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. The measures put forward in this amendment will give a small recognition to the tens of thousands of carers who do not qualify for any payment and to those who may qualify if the means test were changed. A disregard of £150 per week is small when one takes account of real jobs. If the spouse of a person caring for a mother or a mother-in-law earns approximately £290 gross per week, that carer will be excluded from any payment under the carer's allowance. That is quite a low income and that disregard needs to be substantially changed. The figure of £290 per week is comparable to the average industrial wage, but many people do not earn that wage and do Trojan work at home. They feel excluded and that the State does not recognise their work. If carers were to put their relatives in nursing homes the State would look after them, but it will not reward carers for looking after them in their homes. I hope the Minister will respond positively to this proposal. The first sentence of the letter Members received from the Carers Association after the budget states that there was an unprecedented sense of hurt among carers at the proposals concerning them in the budget. It needs to be addressed. I hope in the next budget the Minister will be able to provide something substantial for carers.

Proinsias De Rossa

I support this proposal. It is invidious to distinguish between one sector of carers such as parents and others, but those who provide care for an elderly or invalid relative, whether a brother, mother or sister, who may have given up their employment to do that work and provide care on a 24 hour basis, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year deserve special attention. We should not take with a grain of salt the letter from the Carers Association after the budget which declared there was a sense of hurt. I believe that was a genuine sense of hurt. That is not to deny the Minister introduced concessions in respect of free travel, but that was more a case of having to do something for the carers having used all the resources in other areas. We had to give a nod in the direction of carers otherwise the roof would have come in on top of us. I do not know of any other area of social welfare other than the carer's allowance where there is such support for making major changes. There is a need to change the means test and to look seriously at residential qualification and the provision of respite care. Respite care comes under another Department but the Minister informed us previously that a joint report by the Departments of Social, Community and Family Affairs and Health and Children is due. I have no doubt it will make recommendations which will require a fundamental review of how carers are treated and I hope serious thought will be given to implementing them.

This issue will not go away. There is a strong case on economic grounds, leaving aside the humanitarian issue, for ensuring carers are adequately supported by society. In the context of the economic argument if one were to triple the carer's allowance and provide respite care, one would still not come near the cost of putting a person into a nursing home. I acknowledge it is not possible to care for everybody at home and there will always be people for whom it will be impossible to care in the home. People reach a stage where the carer simply cannot cope any longer or the health of the person being cared for simply declines to such an extent that he or she cannot be cared for at home. There will always be a need for residential care but given the way in which society is developing and the ageing population, we need to get to grips now with how we will provide for them.

The Carers' Association, in its pre-budget submission, suggested a carer's benefit scheme to be introduced for workers taking leave to care at home. I am proud that I formulated this proposal while I was in the Department and was hopeful of having the opportunity of seriously doing something about it. It would cost £50 million to implement it and require a 1 per cent rise in the rate of employer's PRSI. If that was shared among employers, it would be more beneficial but it should be seriously looked at because some of the benefits which people received for their PRSI contributions are outdated.

It is always risky for a politician to pinpoint a benefit that should be removed but the death benefit paid out is tiny. It is useless in enabling a relative to bury a loved one. It is no longer of value as it was introduced when people did not have the resources to bury their dead. People died younger and death among young people, in particular, was more frequent. We should look at what new benefits are necessary, such as a carer's benefit, while looking at how the benefit system should be structured.

Priority is given to the 30,000 or so who provide full-time care. The living under one roof regulations and the home-maker scheme should be extended to carers, for instance, where a person takes time out of work to care for a child. It should also apply to a person who cares for an incapacitated person. This is a valuable proposal which would not cost anything until the person retired. It is estimated the carer's allowance should be £40 per week.

The carer's allowance and support for carers should have priority. There are many other priorities and issues are constantly elbowed on to the agenda. Credit will not be given to any Government, no matter which parties are involved in it, if this issue is not tackled in the relatively near future.

Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin

The first part of my amendment deals with the calculation of means on the basis of net rather than gross earnings and the second deals with the increase in the disregard of income from £150 to £200 per week. I support the amendment on the carer's respite allowance tabled by my colleagues.

The carer's allowance is very restricted with the result that many carers who look after the ill and incapacitated are still completely ignored. When the economy is so vibrant it is very difficult to understand how people who give up their working lives to look after incapacitated individuals are still ignored. A huge number of anomalies in the carer's allowance were pointed out on Committee Stage and they will have to be looked at.

I pay tribute to the Carers' Association as the people involved in it are very reasonable and caring. Many of them have gone through the mill looking after ill people. We know of many instances where young people get cancer, live for a number of months and people give up jobs to care for them. Carers do not receive recognition because of the anomalies that exist with the result that money is not the only issue as they are left at home to look after sick people and provide very high levels of care. On Committee Stage I suggested the Minister should consult his colleague in the Department of Health and Children. The money saved by that Department on carers would make up the amount sought by us.

It is unacceptable that so many carers are not recognised for their work. Men and women look after elderly parents, sick children and spouses and it is ridiculous that provision cannot be made for them. Those being cared for must be taken into account as they are entitled to the dignity of being looked after and dying in their homes and communities. Many elderly people want to die at home as it is the place in which they are most comfortable. Hospitals can do no more for them in many cases and the best people to look after them are their own. Will the Minister consider the amendments and deal with them as a matter of urgency? Carers usually look after people for a short time but it is difficult for them. This is of vital importance and I plead with the Minister to take it on board.

Mrs. Barnes

There is consensus about this issue as it is not party political. We all know people who have made extraordinary sacrifices to care for an elderly relative at home. Some of them gave up their career, pension and promotion opportunities. In addition to the benefits, we must take into account the financial implications for carers. Traditionally the single unmarried daughter was expected to look after her elderly relatives. Having passed up the opportunity to have her own home, she then had to divide the family home with the other family members who probably made a small contribution to caring for their parents.

I welcome the setting up of the interdepartmental group to review this area. The assistance provided by outside health agencies to carers is extraordinarily restricted. For example, a house call by a physiotherapist could prevent a person being put into residential care. I know people who have had to fight major battles to have oxygen tanks brought to the home so that the elderly relative does not have to be brought to hospital. Carers should be given adequate support services so that their sick and elderly relatives do not have to be put into residential care. This would also ensure huge savings for the Exchequer.

I will not labour the point further as we are all aware that carers are the most forgotten and taken for granted group in society. I ask the Minister to lobby other Ministers to ensure this budget is provided.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Having listened to the previous contributions, it is not easy to put forward an original idea. I first raised this issue when Deputy Woods was Minister for Social Welfare and the allowance was £6. While there have been improvements in the meantime, when one considers that some people give up jobs to look after the elderly and the huge cost of keeping these people in hospital, it is indefensible to say to carers that they will not get an adequate allowance for the marvellous work they do. Carers give a wonderful service to the elderly and reduce the demand for hospital beds. It is economic madness not to ensure these elderly people are cared for at home.

Mr. D. Ahern

I add my voice to the points made by the Deputies opposite about the Carers' Association. The carer's allowance was increased by £5 and £3 in the budget. There were also other improvements, two of which were of a technical nature. All Members had received representations about the overly restrictive way the travel pass scheme was being operated. The granting of a free travel pass to carers has been acknowledged by the Carers' Association as a significant improvement.

Following the budget I had a very good meeting with the Carers' Association at which I offered it an input to the interdepartmental working group set up by my predecessor, Deputy De Rossa, to review this area. There was a view that the carer's allowance, properly introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Woods, in 1990 in response to the growing demand that recognition be given to the work carried out by carers, was not sufficient. Many of us know from experience the sacrifices made by people who care for their relatives at home. Regardless of what we do, we will never fully compensate them for the lost opportunities, income and life they would otherwise have had.

I acknowledge the saving carers make to the State by looking after their relatives at home. All the arguments in this regard have been very well made. Caring for people at home is a facet of society that has changed in recent times and it will change even further in the coming years. Previously there was someone at home to look after an elderly relative or infirm child. However, due to changes in society this is no longer the case.

The allowance was introduced in 1990 by the then Minister, Deputy Woods, in recognition of the work carried out by carers. The valid view in the Department is that the allowance has been in place for a number of years and it is time to look at how best to proceed in this area. The interdepartmental body was set up because this is broader than a Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs issue. I do not say this in an effort to pass the matter on to another Department. However, the issue is interdepartmental and will have to be addressed in that way. For example, there are elements which involve the Department of Health and Children and the agencies under its remit. I offered the Carers Association a direct input to the departmental working group reviewing this area. They now have that direct line. I also undertook to meet them on a regular basis between now and the next budget and I am due to meet them in the near future. In my speech on the budget I said that, in view of the concerns they validly expressed to me, I reviewed the operation of the full-time care and attention condition and decided before Second Stage of this Bill to adopt a more flexible approach. I have now decided that carers can attend education or training courses or participate in voluntary or community-based activities for about 10 hours per week, provided that the carer makes adequate provision for the care recipient in his or her absence. These new measures will come into effect almost immediately.

In An Action Programme for the Millennium, we committed ourselves progressively to relax the qualifying criteria for the carer's allowance to ensure that more carers benefit under the scheme and to increase the value in real terms of the allowance. We did the latter in the budget and we decided to wait until the review of the scheme was completed before looking at it again. I made certain commitments in my speech on the last budget which I intend to implement as far as I can in the context of the next budget in December. It is expected the review will be available in the near future — I have asked my Department to expedite it as quickly as possible — and we will then look at the issues raised in it with a view to doing as much as we can in the budgetary context. The cost of the respite care — £30,000 — mentioned by Deputy O'Keeffe would be £30 million if paid to all carers. The cost of raising the income disregard from £150 to £200 per week is approximately £3.6 million.

I have already given a commitment to the Carers Association and in my speech on the budget that in light of what comes from the review and of the budgetary conditions I will do what I can about this issue. I would like to think the review will point the way forward for my Department and the Department of Health and Children on the broader issue of care for people in the home.

Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin

If we do not deal properly with carers now the younger generation may not be as prepared as the current generation to carry out such work without recognition. If we do not give recognition we will have huge problems because our hospitals and nursing homes will overflow with ill people.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I appreciate the Minister's good intent from the point of view of meetings, monitoring, inputs to interdepartmental committees. etc. That is all very well in its own way but my party leader, Deputy McGrath and I met the Carers' Association, which made clear that it wants action now. It did not get that action — the measures taken are modest and technical and the main issues were not dealt with.

Mr. D. Ahern

They were not dealt with over the years, to be fair.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

It is necessary to push the issue to a vote to show we do not accept this handing off of carers.

There were many other issues I would like to have spoken and voted on. In calling this vote I am registering my opinion not only about the carers, who are close to my heart, but also pro rata pensions for the self-employed and the other issues we have discussed. I do not point my finger solely at the Minister — I believe he made the best effort he could to obtain from the Government a package which would be commensurate with our level of development. In relation to earlier years the money is not bad but given our current state of development and the huge inflow of funds to the Exchequer, surely we could do better for those who need it most. This Government did not give the needy the priority they deserved and I am putting all my feelings about its approach to the Bill into this vote. It has left the Minister with insufficient funds to address this problem. In voting in favour of this amendment I am voting against the many provisions of the Bill with which I disagree.

Mr. D. Ahern

I accept that Deputies have to——

An Ceann Comhairle

The mover of the amendment has replied to it.

Mr. D. Ahern

I thought he had only made his second two minute contribution. I accept that he must play politics on this issue. In the years since the provision was brought in, not much was done while his party was in Government.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister knows that is not true.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order for the Minister to speak. The mover of the amendment has replied.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 70.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Stagg; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.

Amendment declared lost.

Tá
Allen, Bernard.	Howlin, Brendan.
Barnes, Monica.	Kenny, Enda.
Barrett, Seán.	McCormack, Pádraic.
Bell, Michael.	McDowell, Derek.
Belton, Louis.	McGinley, Dinny.
Bradford, Paul.	McGrath, Paul.
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).	Mitchell, Jim.
Burke, Liam.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Burke, Ulick.	Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
Carey, Donal.	Naughten, Denis.
Clune, Deirdre.	Neville, Dan.
Cosgrave, Michael.	Noonan, Michael.
Crawford, Seymour.	O'Keeffe, Jim.
Creed, Michael.	O'Shea, Brian.
Currie, Austin.	O'Sullivan, Jan.
D'Arcy, Michael.	Owen, Nora.
De Rossa, Proinsias.	Perry, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Rabbitte, Pat.
Durkan, Bernard.	Reynolds, Gerard.
Enright, Thomas.	Ring, Michael.
Farrelly, John.	Sheehan, Patrick.
Ferris, Michael.	Stagg, Emmet.
Finucane, Michael.	Stanton, David.
Flanagan, Charles.	Timmins, Billy.
Gilmore, Éamon.	Upton, Pat.
Higgins, Michael.	Yates, Ivan.

Níl
Ahern, Dermot.	Brady, Johnny.
Ahern, Michael.	Brady, Martin.
Ahern, Noel.	Brennan, Matt.
Ardagh, Seán.	Brennan, Séamus.
Aylward, Liam.	Briscoe, Ben.
Blaney, Harry.	Browne, John (Wexford).
Byrne, Hugh.	Lenihan, Brian.
Callely, Ivor.	Martin, Micheál.
Carey, Pat.	McDaid, James.
Collins, Michael.	McGuinness, John.
Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.	Moffatt, Thomas.
Coughlan, Mary.	Molloy, Robert.
Cowen, Brian.	Moloney, John.
Davern, Noel.	Moynihan, Donal.
de Valera, Síe.	Moynihan, Michael.
Dempsey, Noel.	ÓCuí, Éamon.
Dennehy, John.	O'Dea, Willie.
Doherty, Seán.	O'Donoghue, John.
Ellis, John.	O'Flynn, Noel.
Fleming, Seán.	O'Hanlon, Rory.
Flood, Chris.	O'Keeffe, Batt.
Foley, Denis.	O'Keeffe, Ned.
Fox, Mildred.	O'Kennedy, Michael.
Hanafin, Mary.	O'Malley, Desmond.
Harney, Mary.	O'Rourke, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.	Power, Seán.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.	Roche, Dick.
Jacob, Joe.	Ryan, Eoin.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Smith, Brendan.
Kelleher, Billy.	Smith, Michael.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Treacy, Noel.
Killeen, Tony.	Wade, Eddie.
Kirk, Séamus.	Wallace, Mary.
Kitt, Michael.	Walsh, Joe.
Kitt, Tom.	Wright, G.V.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am now required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendment set down by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and not disposed of is hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".

Question put and agreed to.