Vol. 513 No. 2
6 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will request the Government to increase dependant allowances to at least 70% of the main rate in 2000 in the Social Welfare Bill, possible future budgetary revisions and the current partnership talks. [1910/00]
37 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on whether the benchmark for the qualified adult of 70% as recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare is outdated; if he supports the establishment of a new commission to review this rate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1908/00]
I will endeavour to fulfil the Chair's request. I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 37 together. I indicated to the House at budget time that I will be moving over the next three years to increase the qualified adult allowance to 70% of the main rate. This is in line with the commitment in the Government's action programme to refocus the welfare system in favour of the family unit and the findings of the report of the household review group. Last December's budget starts this process by providing special increases so as to raise all qualified adult allow ance rates above 60% of the appropriate personal rate from May this year.
With regard to the question of the appropriate level of QAA rates, the Commission on Social Welfare in its 1986 report recommended that the rates of payment for qualified adults should be set at 60% of the basic payment for a single person. The commission argued that two people living together, especially couples, are financially interdependent as all of the living costs such as housing, fuel and household goods are shared and there are economies of scale involved. However, the commission's recommendation was not based on any original research into equivalence scales and reservations were subsequently expressed about this level.
Recent work undertaken by the ERSI for the interdepartmental working group on the treatment of married, cohabiting and one-parent households under the tax and social welfare systems has pointed out that there is no consensus on this point and that different methodologies yield different results. The ESRI work in this area, however, suggested an equivalence scale for a second adult in the region of 70% and this is the approach which is being adopted by the Government.
QAA, along with a range of other issues are under discussion with the social partners as part of the negotiations on a possible successor to Partnership 2000.
As two questions are being taken together the time for supplementary questions is eight minutes but each question and answer must not exceed one minute.
The Government introduced individualisation of the tax code at a time when there has been a long standing real demand for individualisation of the social welfare code. Does the Minister agree that the rates he will introduce in May for dependants, for example, dependants of long-term unemployed, £47 per week, old age non-contributory, £51.70 per week and blind person's dependant, £47 are disgraceful when we have a e100 billion economy? The Minister was rambling on in his reply to Deputy O'Keeffe about the UN report. Is not the reality that the gap between the most deprived in our community and the richest grows wider daily? The Minister has taken his eye off the ball. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, will spend only 25% of GDP in 2002.
The Deputy should confine himself to the question.
The Minister will receive only 20%. He has taken his eye off the ball big time.
The Deputy should resume his seat. He is breaking the one minute rule.
Obviously, the Deputy does not understand economics.
I am qualified in them but the Minister is not.
Then the Deputy is trying to hoodwink the people by saying that the proportion of social welfare has been reduced. The reality is that there are more people at work.
The rate is the lowest in Europe.
The Deputy should cease interrupting.
We have the lowest unemployment ever. I will not lecture the Deputy again on the unemployment figures.
It is a disgrace. The rate is the lowest in Europe.
The ESRI report was published in August and I immediately secured Government approval of the acceptance of that suggestion on the level of QAA, 70%. Individualisation of social welfare payments is an issue that has been around for some time. The working group that looked at it did not reach any conclusion. Obviously there are ways and means of doing it. This issue has been around for quite some time and the working group which examined it could not reach any conclusion in that respect. Obviously there are ways and means of doing it, and those are being examined in the context of the partnership talks and in relation to future policies, but the best benchmark we can reach is that suggested by the experts in the area, the ESRI, and the Government is committed to doing that. We have already given that commitment in the recent budget.
How can the Minister defend a Government that introduces individualisation in the tax code and refuses to introduce it in the social welfare code?
I am not saying we are refusing to introduce it.
Does he accept that the consequence of that in the last budget, at least one version of it, is that a pair earning £100,000 per year will gain £77 per week from the budget because of the individualisation proposal while, on the other hand, a man on disability assistance for himself and his wife will get £7.80? Will the Minister accept that is an outrageous way for the Government to treat the poor? Furthermore, this week, without any announcement, the butter voucher scheme was abolished, a scheme that has been in existence for the past 21 years. One million people will be deprived of their butter vouch ers. That is another saving of £4 million without any compensation whatever.
A pre-election promise.
I reject that. There was compensation in that respect in that the payments given under the recent budget were again far in excess of inflation and far in excess of anything delivered by the previous Government.
Is £7.80 the compensation?
The working group commissioned the ESRI to undertake research into equivalent scales. The ESRI work in this area pointed out that there was not a consensus on this issue; the different methodologies yielded different results. The ESRI came to the conclusion of 70%, and we should aim for that. There are different ways of defining individualisation, and these were examined by the working group. The first is the payment of QAA's direct to the person concerned, as is currently the case; increasing the QAA to the same level as the personal rate, which obviously would cost a great deal of money; and full independent treatment in payment and under means tests of all those under the system. That means dividing them 50-50, but it would be difficult to make that mandatory, if we were to introduce a system whereby we would split the existing payments without increasing the QAA dramatically up to 100%, something to which we would all aspire. The working group concluded that the best way of accomplishing this was through the social insurance system, that this was already under way with the increasing workforce and that everybody would have a stamp record. Also, there was a fall of 25% in QAA's over that period.
We heard about the Minister's Green Paper on a basic income up to the time of the last general election but now, two and a half years later, we still have not received a format. What has the Minister done about the basic income issue over the past two and a half years? This is very much related to the issue of dependence on social welfare benefits. Also, we understand that the voluntary pillar in the current partnership negotiations is demanding a basic income of 50% of medium income. Would this be for every adult citizen, and how much would it cost? Is the Minister committed to introducing such a measure this year?
I will not second guess any of the negotiations currently taking place under partnership but all those issues are being examined both by my Department and other Departments and discussed with all the social partners, not just the fourth pillar. On the overall cost, I do not have the figures with me but I will undertake to endeavour to give the Deputy a figure in that respect.
What about the basic income?
There is a separate question on the basic income.
Will the Minister expand a little further on how the poor have been compensated for the withdrawal of the butter vouchers? Does he accept that these vouchers are of great importance to almost one million people – more than 500,000 recipients of social assistance and more than 400,000 dependent children? Why did the Minister not have the guts to explain what he was doing? These people do not even know they have lost these—
Butter vouchers is a separate question.
They broke their election promise.
What compensation is the Minister talking about, to make up for that loss to social assistance beneficiaries of something to which they have been accustomed for the past 20 years? Does this Government have any interest in the poor?
That is their election promise down the drain.
Deputy O'Keeffe obviously was not listening to my budget speech because I indicated in that speech that the butter vouchers were being phased out. I said in that speech—
It was not included in the Minister's press statement.
I said in my budget speech that because of that we were giving higher increases than we would normally give in our basic payments.
A total of £4 for the disabled.
That is much more than was given during the Deputy's period in office. Before he came in here I gave the Deputy the percentages in that respect. If he wishes, I will again give him the percentages which show that we gave more than his party did when in office.
We did not abolish the butter voucher scheme.
The situation in relation to the butter vouchers was not of my making in that we were dictated to by Europe to the effect that these butter vouchers were to be phased out. That is the reality, despite representations from both me and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development on this issue. My Department only has responsibility for the delivery of the scheme. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is the Department which negotiated this issue. I suggest that the Deputy listens when I next speak in the Dáil on the budget.
I have it here with me.
It should be circulated to all the people from whom the Minister took money.
7 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the plans, if any, he has to extend the budgetary provision of carer's benefit beyond 12 months in the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1900/00]
24 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if his Department has estimated the cost of abolishing the means test for carer's allowance at £150 million; his views on whether this cost is low; the plans, if any, he has to abolish this means test in view of the budgetary surplus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1905/00]
29 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will reconsider his decision not to introduce a cost of caring allowance in the Social Welfare Bill in view of possible further budgetary revisions and the current partnership talks; and his definition of distance carers. [1911/00]
30 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will review the living in close proximity rule for the carer's allowance in view of the fact it is discriminating against carers living close by, particularly in rural areas. [1916/00]
45 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he consulted the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Finance in deciding on the qualifications for a carer's allowance given that it could have a huge financial saving to the State if more people were cared for in their own homes and their quality of life would be much better. [2017/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 24, 29, 30 and 45 together.
I am delighted to inform the House that I have secured Government approval to extend the duration of the carer's benefit scheme from 12 months, as I announced in the recent budget, to 15 months. This new carer's benefit scheme will provide financial support and allow carers to avail of a job-protected leave of absence for a period of up to 15 months. This will recognise that leaving employment to provide care is a contingency broadly similar to other contingencies under the social insurance code and, as such, the benefit will fill a gap in the social insurance system. This new benefit will be based on a person's PRSI contributions and will come into effect in October 2000. Further details of this new scheme will be given in the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill.
As part of the Government's commitment to carers, as set out in An Action Programme for the Millennium, an overall review of the carer's allowance was completed by an interdepartmental committee, chaired by my Department, and was published in October 1998. Both the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Finance were represented on this committee.
The review of the carer's allowance noted that it is difficult to estimate the number of full-time carers in the country. While care groups have estimated this figure to be around 100,000 carers, it is not clear that all of these are full-time carers. Based on work in the review, the current figure is estimated to be around 50,000 people covering carers of older people and adults and children with disabilities. This figure is projected to increase considerably over time. Based on these estimates, the abolition of the means test would cost in excess of £150 million in a full year.
At the end of December 1999, there were almost 14,400 carer's allowances in payment at a cost of almost £56 million. Deputy Crawford will be interested to hear that this was an increase of almost 60% in the number of carers in receipt of this allowance since this Government took office two and a half years ago.
The review of the carer's allowance noted that the allowance is an income support payment and not a payment for caring. It examined the means test and considered that it should be maintained as a way of targeting resources towards those most in need. The means test applied to the carer's allowance is one of the more flexible tests in terms of the assessment of household income. However, the position in regard to the means test will be kept under review in a budgetary context. I introduced a major package of improvements in the 1999 budget at a cost of £18 million. One of the measures involved changes in the means test for carer's allowance.
The review group also examined the issue of a cost of care allowance and considered it to be within the remit of the Department of Health and Children. It is similar to the requests for a cost of disability payment which the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities recommended should be introduced by the Department of Health and Children.
Government policy is strongly in favour of supporting care in the community and enabling people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. This policy was reaffirmed last August when the residency conditions for the carer's allowance were relaxed considerably. The original residency requirement, that the carer must live with the care recipient, was put in place to safeguard the interests of the care recipient. This requirement was examined as part of the review of the carer's allowance and it was proposed that this rule be relaxed to introduce greater flexibility into the scheme. On foot of this I brought forward new arrangements which were put in place in August to allow non-resident carers who were, broadly speaking, living next door to the care recipient to qualify. The underlying principle is that the care recipient receives the full-time care and attention he or she needs. If Deputies have concerns about specific cases in this area, I will be happy to examine them.
The many measures I have introduced in recent budgets clearly indicate my personal commitment, and that of the Government to carers. We have enabled people in need of care to be looked after in their own homes and communities and we appreciate the valuable role performed by carers in our society.
I have been critical of the Minister on many issues today but I commend him for extending the carer's benefit to 15 months. Why, however, do we have to wait until October for this to start? As the social welfare spokesman for the Labour Party, I have received many complaints from people in rural areas that the residency rule is being interpreted very rigidly. I have a letter from a councillor—
The Deputy must confine himself to questions.
The Minister's officials told us at a meeting of the Committee on Social, Community and Family Affairs that to abolish the means test for carers would cost only £150 million. Surely in the era of a e100 billion economy, the Minister could afford that money to give a basic income to the 50,000 people who have had an endless slog over many years in very difficult circumstances.
If I had £150 million to spend tomorrow, I would not spend it in a slap-dash manner. I would like to look at the recipient and what he or she requires, as was recommended in the review of the carer's allowance. It is not the same in every case. The suggestion in the carer's review was that we should bring forward a needs assessment. As a result of that suggestion, my Department and the Department of Health and Children, under the aegis of the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, have set up a working group to look at needs assessment. I understand the Department of Health and Children proposes to bring forward a pilot scheme for this to see how it works.
I have kept a close eye on residency requirements because I was interested in changing the regulations. I told my officials that I wanted them reviewed. If cases came forward which show anomalies, we will look again at changing the regulations because I do not want them to be interpreted strictly.
Is the Minister aware of the reaction of the Carers Association to the budget? It stated that the budget was grossly unfair to family carers, the vast majority of whom are women, who remain at home to care for a person who is severely disabled, frail in old age or terminally ill. That was the association's reaction to the marginal improvements introduced in the budget. Does the Minister accept there should be a quantum improvement now which would bring in many more carers? Does he accept there is too much bureaucracy involved and that some of the regulations are being interpreted very strictly? I have been told of the case of a person caring for an 86 year old man, who is quite frail, who was refused the allowance because the man being cared for does not need that care. How ridiculous can we get in the implementation of these regulations? Will the Minister ensure they are implemented in a flexible and sensible fashion?
I do not accept what the Deputy said about the reaction of the carers lobby groups. If the Deputy asked any of those groups which Government has done most for carers in recent years they would admit that this Government and this Department has done most. The vast majority of the proposals in the carers' review set up by my Department have been implemented in a very short time. The report was published only a year ago. A new carer's benefit scheme is not mere tinkering, it is a major issue. The social partners sought this in the partnership negotiations but I brought it forward before those talks had concluded.
I welcome any new benefits for carers. I have, however, heard of a case of a woman who is looking after her sister who is suffering from terminal cancer. Because her husband is in an ordinary job, she cannot get help. If she was not looking after her sister, the State would have to do so at enormous cost. Does the Minister accept that since he entered office he has not increased the disregard for a married couple? It was increased from £50 to £150 by the Minister's predecessor. The Minister has not increased that figure in three budgets in a time of inflation and increased wages.
Will the Minister re-examine how the means test is carried out, particularly when people employed in agriculture are involved? Although it is not relevant to the carer's allowance, I came across a case relevant to means testing in which two cows and six bullocks were judged to create an income for a 75 year old farmer of £3,300. The lady in charge of that means test should not have been in charge.
Since I entered office the figure for the carer's allowance has increased by 60% and the number of recipients has increased by 60%. The means test is the most generous of all social welfare means tests. I will keep it under review.
This year I wanted to bring forward the carer's benefit which is the best way to proceed. There are now 1.7 million people in work compared to one million in 1990, so strategically it is better to have a carer's benefit scheme enabling people at work to take time off to help someone in the home. The carer's allowance is a social assistance payment which will never compensate someone who is caring for a person at home. That must be accepted. We will endeavour to increase it as much as possible. My record withstands scrutiny and is ahead of anyone else's who has been in this position.
Has the Department, or any Department, carried out research into the demographic trends associated with an ageing population and the future needs of older people who may need care in their homes? Given that most Deputies are inundated with requests from older people and their relatives for places in local hospitals when they get old, can the Minister tell us where we are heading from the point of view of demographic trends?
This is an issue which primarily falls within the remit of the Department of Health and Children. As Minister with responsibility for pensions, my Department published a review some time ago which indicated that the population will increase. That is why the Government made its courageous, long-term decision, a decision which will stand the test of time and turn out to be the most strategic decision made by any Government—
For the wealthiest of the population.
—and which will rank with the decisions of the Fianna Fáil Governments in the 1960s to invest heavily in education. That is entirely contrary to Deputy John Bruton's assertion this morning that we are not making strategic decisions.
Wait until the election.
Our population will get older and this is something we must all bear in mind in our personal and institutional planning. The Minister for Finance and I have put forward a proposal for a fund for pensions. The issue of caring for an older population is one which must be planned for strategically. The carer's benefit will allow people who have a contribution record to take time off work.
Question No. 45 refers to carer's allowance which is within the Minister's remit. What research or planning has his Department carried out regarding the future of the carer's allowance?
That research has been done by the Department. It fits in with the research that has been done on pensions. At the moment we have a population of approximately 440,000 people over 65. In 50 years time we will have a population of more than one million over 65. Governments will have to take these figures into account in their long-term planning. In relation to pensions, for which I have direct responsibility, that has been done. On the issue of caring for the elderly, the Department of Health and Children, which has primary responsibility for caring, will do the necessary planning. This includes planning for the future demands on carer's allowance.
These are all demand-led schemes. The more people who apply for them the more money we must pay. At the moment there are five workers to every one person over 65. In 50 years time there will be only two workers for every person over 65.
They will be older workers.
Does the Minister accept that had it not been for the increase in the disregard from £50 to £150 we would not have such a large number of people in receipt of carer's allowance? There is a need to improve the disregard. Will the Minister consider making such an improvement in the Social Welfare Bill?
I campaigned for the relaxation in the residency requirement for carers and I appreciate that measure. Can the Minister give an exact guideline for distance of residence of carers. Officials of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs appear to be imposing strict limitations on where a carer may live and on the exact number of hours devoted by the carer to the elderly person. If someone is caring for an elderly neighbour or relative living a mile or two away, he or she cannot hold down another job. There seems to be inconsistency in applying the regulations and this is causing problems.
While I accept that the increase of the disregard by my predecessor has brought extra people into the scheme, because of changes I have made, the number of recipients has increased by 60% which is a very dramatic figure.
I welcome those changes.
I have been keeping an extremely close eye on the issue of residency and I had occasion to ring a Fine Gael Deputy yesterday regarding a parliamentary question he had asked on this issue. I felt the case he referred to should have been allowed but the deciding officer had made a decision based on the regulations that have been put in place. I am keeping a close eye on the regulations and I have given an undertaking to the carers' association to review the issue of residency after six months and, if necessary, change the regulations. This is a very difficult issue because no matter where the line is drawn someone will be just outside it. I know of one very harrowing case of a carer who lives approximately four miles from the person being cared for. The regulation states that the carer should live within easy walking distance.
A Deputy asked why carer's benefit is being introduced in October. The introduction of a new scheme takes some time and that is why it will begin in October. It is being brought in quicker than it might have been because I have removed it from the area of partnership talks.
8 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the proposals, if any, regarding the £5 million fund for out of school hours child care in areas of disadvantage. [1914/00]
As announced in the budget, an annual allocation of £5 million has been provided to my Department to support provision of out of school hours and child care services in disadvantaged communities. It is envisaged that the funding will mainly be made available to the projects funded under the community development support programmes. These are: the community development programme; the family and community services resource centre programme; and the core funded community and family support groups programme.
The report of the interdepartmental committee on child care recommended that funding be provided totalling £5 million per annum for community groups towards developing out of school hours services. The committee anticipated that the provision of this funding to less well off communities would address a number of issues, including: the provision of low cost out of school child care for parents who are in low paid employment; practical support for children who need additional support to maintain their interest in school; the promotion of parental and community involvement in engaging young people in school and community life; and the provision of additional community based services for families.
In keeping with the spirit of partnership which informs the way in which these community development programmes are managed in my Department a working group representative of the local community development groups themselves and other interests and expertise in the child care area is being set up to advise on the detailed design of this scheme and in particular issues such as criteria for applications, technical support needs, service standards and staff issues.
The intention is that the working group will be convened in early February and the availability of the grants will be advertised more widely once the detailed scheme has been drawn up and agreed. Given the need to allow sufficient time for local groups to draw up and submit applications, I anticipate that I will be in a position to commence allocation of moneys under the scheme in April.
This tiny initiative is welcome but it is a drop in the ocean. Does the Minister agree that many Deputies were struck on budget night by the fact that his entire child care package was only worth approximately the same as the cut in capital taxation? The sum of £5 million is very small. Can the Minister guarantee that child care and out of school projects which have been established by Leader and Partnership companies, particularly in the south and south-east which receives less European money, will be funded by his Department? The Minister would need to spend £50 million and not £5 million.
The Deputy cannot have read the speech of the Minister for Finance. The interdepartmental committee suggested that the Government, from now until 2004 or 2005, would spend approximately £46.6 million in each year. The budget provision for the coming year is £46.6 million, as suggested by the interdepartmental group. What the group asked for is being granted by the Minister for Finance. Part of that is the £5 million which will go to the community development projects and the family support services.
Already, as a result of initiatives taken by me and by my predecessor, the majority of the centres funded by the family and community support services programme of my Department have crèche and child care facilities because part of the funding already being given to them is spent on those services. About 50% of the community development projects have créche and child care facilities. Given that the provision of £200,000 for after school support services which I initiated last year has been increased to £5 million, we will be hard pressed to spend it in the coming year.
It could be spent in my constituency.
It could be spent in mine.
My main criticism in the child care area is of the miserable increase in child benefit. The Minister did not adopt the proposal of the Leader of the Fine Gael Party to increase child benefit to £25.
Which leader is that, Deputy Noonan or Deputy Bruton? They could not sing off the same hymn sheet.
The Minister is in a bad way when he has to adopt that attitude.
They got it wrong.
The Minister failed on that score but on this issue I wish the Minister well. I am glad the scheme is being implemented. However, I seek one commitment. The Minister says the details are not in place, but will he come back to the House with a full report on the operation of the scheme when the details are worked out? It could be a good scheme but it might require more funding. However, let us see it in operation first. I wish him well with the scheme but I will come back to him with regard to child benefit.
I thank the Deputy for his remarks on this issue but I do not accept his comments on child benefit. Child benefit, which is generally a substantial allocation, was increased by 25% this year.
Some £10 per week.
That is the largest increase in child benefit in the history of the State.
Ten pounds per week.
A total of £105 million was given to child benefit, a 25% increase. That is not minimal.
The Minister does not have the bottle.
It is far more than was given by any of my predecessors. With regard to the issue before us, I was delighted to get this allocation because I have endeavoured, since being appointed Minister, to ensure that the community development projects and family support services, which are generally located in and targeted at areas of deprivation, will have proper cre±che and child care facilities to allow families who have been in deprivation and perhaps never had the opportunity of employment to avail of them. I am particularly concerned about lone parents. The State needs to encourage them back into the workplace. They are an untapped resource in that respect. Time and again, however, people in that position will point out that they have nobody to mind their children. In the areas for which I have direct responsibility, I will ensure that the £5 million is well spent.
I undertake to come back to the House in this regard although I do not know when the Deputy expects me to do so. The applications for funding will be sent out in April and they will have to be examined before the money is spent. Perhaps when the scheme has expended the moneys, we can carry out an assessment of how they have been spent.
If it is short of money, the Minister can refer back to the House.
