Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 2001

Vol. 531 No. 1

Social Welfare Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Kenny

The changes in the social welfare system in the past ten years have benefited everybody, particularly recipients, and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has been included in the modern business-like response system of politics in that in some places those who call to political clinics can now produce their smart card which has their PRSI number and details electronically stored. This has moved a system of payment from the State to recipients of social welfare in various categories from being a bureaucratic nightmare to something that has become streamlined.

I listened to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform speak on the "Morning Ireland" radio programme about the drink and licensing laws. He said that it would not be possible to issue identity cards to everybody in the State. However, many thousands of people in receipt of social welfare benefits have received identity cards in the form of smart cards which identify who they are, their date of birth and social welfare entitlements. The Minister might indicate what is the future of this system. Will it be to move from a system where the smart cards now held by social welfare recipients will be used for the retention of other electronic data relevant to them? In other words, will it become a more complete form of identification?

Our education system leaves much to be desired. I had a visit some weeks ago from a reformed alcoholic, a separated mother of four children who has been through a rough time in the past six to eight years. She has completed a VTOS course in various educational facilities which has provided a new challenge in her life, the possibility of a career and betterment for herself. I raise the matter because there appears to be a difference between the treatment of those who receive disability allowance from a health board and those who receive unemployment assistance from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, the impact of which relates to the charges levied against them if they take up a course in a GMIT, an institute of technology or on VTOS. This anomaly should be rectified. It is the policy of the Government to allow as many people as possible access to whatever part of the education system they wish. The criteria for charging for this should be changed and made more flexible and fair. Perhaps the Minister will look at this aspect of the treatment of different categories of recipients who wish to avail of similar courses of education.

The age-old assessment methods of the inspectors of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs have been ameliorated to some extent. When I first came into the House, assessments for old age pension purposes went into minute detail in terms of the means and assets, income and potential income of applicants. That has been changed and streamlined and, having attended at appeals with old age pension applicants, I am aware that the social welfare inspectorate is open to looking at whatever case is made on behalf of the applicant. I cannot say that they are not prepared to listen to an argument made in particular cases for old age pension applicants. One aspect, however, needs to be looked at by the Minister. That is where old age pensioners receive double payments in the form of a pension from Great Britain and a supplementary pension from Ireland.

We are all aware of the impact of emigration during the years and of the many hundreds of thousands of navvies who left this country and built the motorways, bridges and canal system of Great Britain and other countries. As we have bilateral agreements with a number of these countries, particularly Great Britain, thousands of pensioners here receive both a British pension and a supplementary Irish pension. Where the means of these pensioners are due for review, particularly in relation to the Irish element of the pension, they are likely to suffer serious reductions in the amounts they receive because of the conversion from sterling and the increases allowed in the British budget. The stress and the generally bad feeling which is created by this situation could be alleviated by way of a simple change. The Minister could announce that any person over 75 or 80 years who is in receipt of a British pension and of a part Irish pension will not have this difficulty placed in his way. The numbers involved are relatively small as is the amount of money but the impact on the lives of the pensioners would be huge.

These pensioners have always felt that they were forced out of this country by bad economic times. They went to work in England to keep families at home alive with the Friday parcel or the monthly cheque. At the end of their days, they should not have this bureaucratic nightmare imposed on their humble living standards. A review carried out on a pensioner of 75 or 80 years means they would be liable to suffer serious reductions because of the exchange rate even though the payment in sterling in the first instance means so much to them. A change such as I suggest would be most welcome and beneficial for the pensioners involved. I hope the Minister will take it on board. The matter was brought to my attention by a number of pension applicants from the west of Ireland, an area that traditionally had a heavy emigration rate to Britain.

Databases are now available so we are aware of the many thousands of people living in Great Britain whose sense of pride has been dented, who have not been home for many years and who are now living in doss houses and hostels. They receive little care and attention, particularly medical care, except for that provided by organisations such as DÍON and other voluntary organisations operating from Ireland. Many of them are out of touch with their homes, families and communities.

Given the economic boom, dealing with this issue is not a problem of money but of imagination and effect. The Department should look seriously at a radical approach to bringing these people home. When one talks to them in their alcoholic state, in their misery or in their loneliness, one realises how anxious they are to come home. Many of them were champions of physical work for a generation. They are now unable to work and are seriously drifting down the social scale. The statistics and information available to the Department through the Department of Foreign Affairs is such that their numbers are known. We should be able to find out where they are. They should be contacted and assessed, both physically and mentally if necessary, and given the attention, support and encouragement they need. Where possible, we should at least offer them the opportunity to return to Ireland.

There are a number of community efforts in this area, such as that in Mulrany, County Mayo, where St. Brendan's and Dr. Cowley have brought people back from England. The happiness of these people to be back in their home place in their last years is sublime. While the home place might have changed physically in terms of buildings and planning, we should never lose sight of the importance of the sense of community, even if the roar of the Celtic tiger can be heard from here to the boundaries of Athens.

The four points I outlined are relevant. If the Minister were to take these suggestions on board and implement them, it would enhance the status and compassion of his Department. It would also enhance the community in general and, in particular, would have great relevance to the lives of those most directly affected.

Mr. Power

I am delighted to see Deputy Kenny back in the House. It has been a tough few weeks.

Mr. Kenny

I am a little farther back on the benches than I was before.

Mr. Power

Well, the Deputy cannot go further so he can only go forward.

Mr. Kenny

I am at the same level as Deputy Power.

Mr. Power

I take this opportunity to wish Deputy Kenny well. This morning the Minister put great emphasis on the fact that the Department has changed the system from one that compensates people for economic failure to one that helps people to help themselves. While that idea is good and should be encouraged, we should not lose sight of the fact that many people are not in a position to help themselves.

A country will be judged on how it looks after those who are not in a position to look after themselves. The record of the Government in this regard is a proud one. In 1997, a total of £4.5 billion was spent on social welfare. The figure this year will be more than £6 billion. However, increased budgets do not always achieve the results we seek. In many cases it can help, but it is important to ensure that the money is spent wisely and efficiently and that we get value for it.

In the past, Governments have been criticised for giving commitments before elections and not delivering on them afterwards. This Government has delivered, particularly on social welfare, what it promised. In many cases, it has given more. The old age contributory pension is an example. In 1997 it was £78 per week. That is now increased to £106. When the Government promised it would increase the pension to £100 per week, people said it could not be done. With prudent management, however, we have delivered on that commitment and it is much appreciated by those who are in receipt of it.

Mr. McGrath

They did not get it yet.

Mr. Power

There was an announcement today by the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Molloy, of increased funding for special housing aid for the elderly. My health board area will get a grant of more than £1.25 million.

Mr. McGrath

Was the Deputy on local radio yet?

Mr. Power

That was done before I arrived in the Chamber. This is an area that was neglected in the past. During election campaigns one calls to many houses in rural areas and it is clear that there are many elderly people living alone in extremely poor conditions. It has been hard to get anything done about it. One goes between the health board and the county council in search of assistance but it is difficult to find.

Unfortunately, no matter how much one wishes to think the country has changed, we are still a self centred and greedy race. The poorer people are, the fewer friends they have. One need only go to funerals to see that emphasised. Unless they have a special characteristic or socialise regularly, people in general do not want to know about poor people who live alone. If they have a few bob, however, they will always have a few friends. That attitude, unfortunately, is on the increase.

I wish to deal with the issue of child benefit. There has been ongoing discussion in recent years about child support, crèche facilities and the best way to deal with the child care issue. Some people have been critical of the Government's performance in dealing with child care. A number of initiatives were undertaken. There is general acceptance that child benefit is the best system of family support. It is a targeted approach which is particularly beneficial to children. The Minister has increased the allowances substantially this year and has promised further increases next year.

I wish to raise a question about the different rates of benefit. The rate for the first two children in a family is increased by £25 per month while the rate for the third and subsequent children is increased by £30. Why should there be different rates per child? In the case of a family with four children, such as in my own case, does the bigger increase relate to the eldest child or the youngest? Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point later. I acknowledge the great improvements in child benefit which the Government has brought about. The Minister has lived up to his promises and I hope he will be in a position to deliver the goods again at the time of the next budget.

The Minister referred earlier to the increase in the number of people in receipt of carer's allowance, from 9,000 in 1997 to more than 17,000 today. While the idea is good, there is concern among carers and among people familiar with their role, that the scheme is very restrictive. Many people who are providing the service are not in a position to avail of the carer's allowance. The conditions should be relaxed to allow more people to benefit. It should be possible to put a costing on this. The service provided by carers was taken for granted for too long. This relatively new allowance is an important recognition, though we can never fully compensate carers for their work.

Social welfare problems are frequently raised with Deputies at local clinics. Up to quite recently, people sometimes said they could not afford to take up employment because they were better off on social welfare benefits and had a better quality of life. This was one of the reasons for the introduction of the family income supplement, which has certainly made it more attractive for people to work.

We have seen major changes in the economy in recent years, including the introduction of the minimum wage. The increased incentive to work must be beneficial to the country and to the quality of life. The Government is to be congratulated on creating some 300,000 new jobs and achieving a major decline in the number of people on the live register.

I wish to refer to the free travel scheme. While it is an excellent scheme and greatly facilitates those who are in a position to use it, there are many people in rural areas who have no public transport service. Such people can only get out of their homes with the help of a neighbour or by using a taxi service. I call on the Minister to introduce a transport voucher scheme, to allow a person to have, say, two free trips per week for such purposes as churchgoing or shopping. People need this opportunity to get out of their homes and travel even locally. It would improve their quality of life and the cost would not be great. The resulting flexibility would make it more attractive for people to remain in rural Ireland and help to prevent the current movement of population from the countryside to urban areas.

I appeal to the Opposition to try to improve their performance somewhat. Good government needs good opposition. Far too little time of this House is devoted to policy matters. Issues raised by the Opposition since the last recess have included the facilities available to Deputies, an alleged conflict of interest involving the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and, this week, the position of the former Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. If those are seen as the major problems confronting us, the country is in a much healthier state than I had ever thought possible.

Mr. B. Smith

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on this Bill. I fully support the call by Deputy Power for an extension of the free travel scheme. We all know of elderly people in remote areas who must use a taxi to get to church or to collect their pensions. Taxi fares take up a considerable percentage of the income of such people. We need a system of transport vouchers or some form of supplementary payment for elderly people living outside of urban areas who are not in a position to avail of free transport. Many elderly people live alone in rural areas and have no immediate family members in the neighbourhood. They should be enabled to travel quite freely without having to worry about the cost of transport.

Deputy Kenny has referred to the difficulties of some people who are in receipt of old age pensions from Britain and who have a partial Irish pension. Many such people who had their means assessed recently for Irish pension purposes are now finding their pensions reduced because of the change in the value of sterling vis-à-vis the punt. When sterling was below parity with the punt some years ago, I argued that those people should be compensated on the Irish side. At that time, when Deputy De Rossa was Minister and perhaps also during Deputy Woods' term, the Department adamantly refused to top up the pension to allow for the decline in the value of sterling. It is absolutely appalling that the Department is now punishing people because of the strength of sterling against the Irish punt. The Department should find some other way of saving money, rather than on the pensions of people who are bringing revenue into the country as a result of their hard work abroad over many years.

I have no doubt that Deputy Coughlan, Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, whose county, like mine, has suffered high emigration, has many similar queries from pensioners. I wish her every success in her new position and I am quite sure she will do an excellent job in that Department as Aire Stáit go dtí mí Meitheamh na bliana seo chugainn.

I am very glad the Government has introduced some very progressive measures, including the highest minimum wage in Europe and increasing the number of places on the back to work scheme by 12,000 to 34,000. This has had a significant impact on the unemployed and those on low wages. Despite achieving the lowest live register figures in recent history, the Government has continued to increase social welfare spending from £4.5 billion in 1997 to more than £6 billion in 2001 – an increase of more than 33%. The £850 million package announced in the December budget is four times that introduced by Deputy De Rossa when he was Minister for Social Welfare in 1997.

The increases for pensioners are very welcome. I particularly welcome the £10 increase in the old age pension which follows previous increases of £5, £6 and £7. We all remember the meagre increases introduced by the previous Government which were vigorously defended in the House by Deputies Quinn and De Rossa. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats committed themselves to delivering an old age pension of £100 by 2002 and I am glad a payment of £106 will be realised this year.

The Government is also set to achieve the £100 target for the lowest rate of social welfare benefits agreed in the PPF. The additional £8 represents a 10% increase in personal rates of social welfare payments. This is a welcome increase which will go a long way to ensuring that those who are unemployed will not be left to fend for themselves.

Fianna Fáil has always had a social democratic ethos and a republican belief that all in society should be adequately catered for. While we will make every effort to involve those in the work force we are committed to ensuring that the unemployed are not forced to live in poverty. Much more needs to be done in the area of social welfare and, over the next 12 to 15 months, the Minister will introduce many worthwhile and positive measures aimed particularly at the less well off.

The Government's efforts to bring people into the work force have resulted in a change in social welfare spending. In 1997, £1 in every £4 of social welfare expenditure was on unemployment benefits and supports. This figure is now down to £1 in every £7, while more than 30% of unemployment spending assists people to get back to work or to education. These statistics speak for the improvement in the economy over recent years. VTOS and back-to-work allowance schemes are also important and have a high take-up rate, particularly in rural areas.

This Bill recognises that carers are an irreplaceable element of society. The increases in the income disregard for the carer's allowance means test from £75 to £125 for a single person, and from £150 to £250 for a couple, will enable more than 5,000 new carers to qualify and almost 3,000 existing carers to receive an increased payment. The Minister indicated that more needs to be done in this area and I urge him to further increase the income disregards.

In recent years there has been an improvement in the residency requirements for the carer's allowance. Carers used to have to live under the same roof as the person being cared for to qualify for the allowance. Thankfully a more sensible approach is being taken. However, in some cases a daughter or son may live nine or ten miles from their parents yet spend most of the day in their parents' house caring for them and often return at night to check on them. On occasions the Department is too strict as regards this requirement and some leniency should be shown.

I recently dealt with a case in west Cavan involving a woman who spends the day and most of the night with her mother and then returns to care for her own children in her own home. This woman has been denied the carer's allowance or any sort of assistance. She told me that her mother does not want a home help. Such cases should be examined and some assistance provided.

I am glad that proper funding for carers goes hand in hand with improvements for those with disabilities. Section 17 provides for the extension of the £6 living alone allowance to recipients of disability allowance, invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and blind person's pension, irrespective of age, with effect from April 2001. I welcome this measure which will be of great benefit to the 10,000 recipients who will qualify for an additional supplement.

Deputy Power referred to the loneliness experienced by many people, particularly those living in rural areas. The Department, particularly through the scheme of voluntary grants, has provided worthwhile assistance to many community groups in urban and rural areas. The Minister has been in County Cavan with me on a number of occasions and has seen at first hand the valuable work carried out by local communities where a new resource or community centre is provided. This has enabled local communities to provide a day care facility where people can have a meal or enjoy an afternoon social event.

Such day care centres are the only social outlet for many people who look forward to being collected by the bus so they can meet people from their locality and enjoy an afternoon's hospitality and a wholesome, nutritious meal. I hope the Minister will be able to obtain more funding for the scheme of voluntary grants to ensure that other voluntary groups will be able to provide facilities which are so costly and demanding on local communities.

Mr. McGrath

I congratulate the newest Minister of State, Deputy Coughlan, and wish her well in her new position. I have no doubt she will look back over her comments in recent years and that all the things she wished to implement will be brought to the fore, including some of those mentioned by Deputy Brendan Smith.

Ms Coughlan

Deputy McGrath will have his chance one day.

Mr. McGrath

We expect these things to happen fairly soon and we look forward to working with the Minister of State. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for the social welfare increases included in the Bill. However, as a member of the Opposition I must also point out some of the deficiencies in the social welfare increases and where the Minister fell down on what he should have done.

The country is awash with money yet the poor are pushed out and left without adequate payments. For example, how can anyone be asked to survive on unemployment assistance which has increased from £76 to £84? It must be impossible to do so. There is great affluence in the country and it is terrible that we ask people to survive on £84 per week.

No one has addressed the issue of what will happen when this increase kicks in. I hope the Minister of State will raise this issue with the Minister. Once the increases are introduced, if the recipient lives in a council flat or house, the differential rents system will be reviewed – and this has started in my county – and people will pay increased rents because of increases in social welfare payments. As a result, part of the increase they receive will be immediately clawed back.

If people are living in private rented accommodation and receiving a rent allowance, there will be an immediate claw back as the allowance will be reduced because of the increase in the social welfare benefits. The Minister has failed to address the ceiling limits as regards rent allowances so part of the £8 increase will be clawed back. Even though people are supposed to receive an increase of £8 per week, the reality is it will be a good deal less, and this is not to mention the difficulties caused by inflation.

We need to bring in the poverty proofing review so that increases in social welfare payments will be real increases. Local authority rents, for example, should not go back to the local authority or money from private rented accommodated should not be clawed back by the health board for the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Increases are not being passed on to the recipient as much of them are clawed back. We must have some type of poverty proofing so that people on low incomes are not penalised in that way. Single parents are particularly vulnerable and they get a raw deal.

The Minister has moved a small way to do something for widows and widowers and I welcome the improvement. However, widows and widowers have got a raw deal from this and successive Governments. We must build in special provisions for them. We all know of cases where a widow or widower is heavily penalised by having to pay additional tax. The tax band which was slowly introduced in recent years is a help but it does not fully compensate for the difficulties involved. It seems ridiculous that someone on a middle income, such as a garda or a factory worker, should pay additional tax because his or her wife or husband dies and he or she is left with two or three children. That is horrendous. They get a raw deal in this State. While the Minister has gone some of the way, I hope he goes further and I would support him in that.

As regards family income supplement, only 15,000 people take it up. Yet Revenue officials will say more people should qualify for it and that there is not a full take-up of the scheme. We must review it and see what can be done. At a time when there is good employment but also a great deal of poverty and commitments to rent and mortgages, the Minister should increase the rates by more than £25. The income ceiling for a person with one child is £258. This is increased by £20 to £278 for someone with two children. That is the borderline of people's earnings. Some £300 or £330 is a great deal of money for many people with two children. I hope every effort is made to increase it.

Child benefit was mentioned. Like me, the Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy Coughlan, will not believe that the Minister quoted the child benefit figures which will be in place in 2003.

Mr. Fleming

What is wrong with that?

Mr. McGrath

He is a great man. He referred to how much the figures would increase from one date to another up to 2003. This is 2001. He should not wish away our lives. He might not be here. The figures could be twice as big when someone else takes over.

Mr. N. Ahern

That is long-term thinking.

Mr. McGrath

He should come back to the real world. Deputy Power also mentioned child benefit. The officials in the Department must be tired listening to me complaining about the fact that first and second children get a particular rate of child benefit, while the third and subsequent children get another rate. Why are there different rates for different children?

Ms Coughlan

They eat more.

Mr. McGrath

Why should more money be paid in child benefit for the third and subsequent children compared to first and second children? I was the youngest of ten children. I do not know what year the half crowns, as my mother used to call them, were introduced. When my older brother, who was five years older than me, came of age, I was the last one for which she received payment. However, they would not pay for one child. It was ten bob at that time and my mother thought it was great. As I was the last child on my own, I was pushed out. I can see first and second children, who were the love children, growing up with a grudge because they were badly treated in that they did not receive the same treatment as the third and fourth child. I am sure a good writer will write an essay in the future on deprived first and second children. I am sure it would be interesting and funny. However, this brings to our attention the need to treat all children equally, which is important.

We pay one and a half times the rate of child benefit for twins and double the amount for triplets. There is a view that all multiple births should be treated the same and that double the amount should be paid. Twins should therefore get twice the rate of child benefit. In a time of affluence, we should move in that direction.

I am tired drawing attention to another anomaly in our social welfare system but nothing has been done about it. We do not treat our children equally when it comes to payments. Depending on who one's parents are, the child dependent allowance could be £13.20, £15 or £17 a week. If a couple on social welfare have three children, one child could be worth £13.20, the next child could be worth £15 and the third child could be worth £17. How ridiculous is that? A widow will get an allowance of £17 a week for each child. A person on an invalidity pension or an old age contributory pension with dependent children will get £15 a week for each child. However, a person on unemployment benefit or disability allowance will only get £13.20 a week for each child. It is time to change that and to treat all children equally.

The payment should be increased to £17 for all children. I hope the Minister does not say the poverty review, which was done three or four years ago, stated that this would be seen as a disincentive to work. That has gone out the door because that review was done before the back to work allowance scheme was introduced. If a person is on the back to work allowance scheme, the payments are reflected in social welfare where the increased rates would also apply. The Minister should not use that as an excuse. We must change those rates. The only reason he will not do so is that it will cost money because he will not be able to reduce the payments. He will have to increase them all to £17 and the bulk of them are currently receiving £13.20. However, there are sufficient funds to do that.

The meanest thing I have seen in a long time is in this Bill. I am disgusted, although not surprised, at the way the Government has slipped it in. It is mean, low and affects about 400,000 people who I hope will be aware of it. In section 8, the PRSI ceiling will go from £26,500 to £28,250 for the coming year. The PRSI ceiling is rising year after year and we welcome that. To date, however, employees whose incomes reached those thresholds got a PRSI holiday for that part of the year when their incomes were in excess of the PRSI ceiling. The Minister of State might take note that in the tax year 1999-2000, some 340,000 people availed of this PRSI holiday and, therefore, it is a fairly substantial issue for many people. The average benefit they received was £300,000. The current tax year, which runs from April to December, is a shortened one with only 38 weeks. What has the Government done? All personal and PRSI allowances are allowable at 74%. We all have to say that is fair, but what has the Government done with the PRSI ceiling? Nothing. The PRSI ceiling stays as a full year rate at £28,250.

Mr. N. Ahern

If the Deputy is correct, that is to their benefit.

Mr. McGrath

It is not to their benefit. Excuse me, Deputy Ahern.

Mr. N. Ahern

If what the Deputy is saying is correct, it will be to their benefit.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have interruptions, Deputy.

Mr. McGrath

It is not to their benefit because if the ceiling was reduced to the 74% rate, like the allowances, then they would have a PRSI holiday from when their incomes reached £21,000. They are not going to get that, however, and will pay an additional £300 in tax that they should not have to pay.

Mr. N. Ahern

Those are the welfare measures.

Mr. McGrath

That is mean, small-minded and deceptive. The Government has done it because it sees an easy target and wants to slip this measure in without anyone noticing it. On budget day, the Minister for Finance announced that all allowances would be given at the 74% rate, but he did not say a word about the PRSI ceiling which he announced would be at £28,250. That will become an issue. It is a handy one for social welfare because I estimate the Department is collecting about £130 million from it. I may be wrong but according to the figures I have calculated from replies to parliamentary questions, the Department must be collecting approximately that sum. The Minister should examine that matter carefully and do something about it.

Carers are the great unsung heroes in our society. According to the Carers' Society there are about 120,000 of them, but the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs puts the figure at around 55,000. No matter what the real figure is, the Department pays a few shillings to 17,000 carers at most. Therefore, on its own admission the Department pays only 30% of its own total figure for carers. The remaining 70% of carers that the Department recognises receive nothing. Carers look after people 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which equals 168 hours per week. They receive £88 which equals about 50p an hour. It is an absolute disgrace. We give them some benefits, including free travel but where can one go in Westmeath or Donegal with a free travel pass? The person the carer is looking after is probably in a wheelchair unable to access public transport. Carers cannot travel on their own because the free travel passes are not much use.

Let us go back to the idea put forward by one of the Minister's colleagues, which is to provide travel vouchers. In that way, carers could use taxis if they wished. The precedent is there, because we already subsidise people living on islands for travel purposes. They are allowed to use special subsidies for flights in and out of the islands, so why not give limited free travel vouchers to carers for taxis? At least that would be of some use to them. As it now stands, the free travel system is not of much use to most people. The Government is paying CIE a flat rate per travel pass but carers have no use for it because the service is not there. Let us do something about looking after carers. We also have to review how close carers are living to the person they are caring for and what care they are providing.

There are so many carers who are looking after people day and night. Some carers, who have been identified as such by the Department, are not getting a shilling. In this time of affluence, the Department should provide them with a once-off respite payment so they can have a little break. Currently, the respite is only payable to those who receive the allowance. The other 34,000 that the Department recognises as carers receive nothing. They should all receive a respite payment, tested on medical grounds only, so they can have a break.

Mr. Fleming

I wish to share my time with Deputy Noel Ahern.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Fleming

This Bill will go down in history. In 30 or 40 years time when people talk about the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, they will remember him as the man who gave £100 a week to pensioners. He is putting his name into the history books, and not just with regard to this legislation. The Bill will be remembered for a long time by pensioners who appreciate the improvements made in their payments.

In the few years I have been a Member of the House, I have tested public opinion after each budget to see what people think of the increases in my own village of Castletown, County Laois. Generally, they say "So what?" or "It's not very much". Following last year's budget, however, the reaction was outstanding. People genuinely appreciated the £10 per week increase in old age pensions. It was something we had promised in the general election campaign and while people did not think we would do it, we have delivered on it and we still have another budget to go. The only factor that will make the £100 per week pension short-lived in the public mind is that when we come to next year's social welfare increases on 1 January 2002 they will be payable in euros. We will be looking at a weekly pension of 140 or 150 euros, depending on the level of increase. The £100 pension will thus be forgotten, although it is a milestone in pensioners' lives today.

I want to concentrate on the carer's allowance. I am pleased at the big increase in the income disregards for a single person who is a carer, which rises from £75 to £150 per week. That is a generous and substantial increase. We could do more, but it must be recognised that we are making progress in this area. I will continue to keep pressure on the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to ensure they go further in the budget later this year.

In the case of a couple, the income disregard rises from £125 to £250 a week which will result in more than £5,000 new carers coming into the system this year. Based on current information regarding the new income disregard figure, up to 3,000 carers will receive increased payments. When we came into Government, between 8,000 and 9,000 people were in receipt of the carer's allowance. As a result of the new measures, I expect the figure will exceed 20,000 in the coming months.

I appeal to social welfare officers to be more flexible in their approach to dealing with the carer's allowance and case after case has been cited in this House. Deputy Smith spoke about the position in Cavan and the position is the same in County Laois. In cases were sons and daughters care for their elderly parents for hours on end every day, a social welfare officer will make an assessment that such care does not constitute full-time care because at some hour of the day one or other of the carers return to his or her home. A telephone connection between the two houses concerned was allowed in last year's Bill, which indicated there was a direct line in communication and the person concerned was continually available or on call. While that rule was introduced, the Department was slow to publicise it with the result that many people did not know about it. I hope this year more easily readable information on this allowance will be published and made available to the people concerned at a much earlier stage than on previous occasions. When there is good news in this area, there is an onus on all of us to ensure the general public are fully informed about it.

A family with two children on an income of up to £15,000 will qualify for the maximum carer's allowance and families with two children on an income of up to £25,000, which while not substantial is a reasonable income, will qualify for the minimum amount of the carer's allowance. They will also be entitled to the free schemes and the respite grants, which have increased from £300 to £400. Where a carer is caring for two elderly people or two disabled people, he or she will be entitled to a respite grant of £800 in any one year, which is a significant payment.

The carer's allowance benefit must be dovetailed with the carer's leave scheme, which is provided for in the Carer's Leave Bill brought forward by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Second Stage of which was taken in this House two weeks ago. A great effort has been made to dovetail the two schemes. That is probably one of the reasons the Carer's Leave Bill was slow to get off the ground. I am aware of cases in my constituency where people knew this scheme was due to be introduced and applied for carer's benefit, but their application for carer's leave has not yet been approved. Some transition measures need to be introduced. As more than 200 people are affected by this transition arrangement, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs should work with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make sure their applications are properly considered and that they are granted carer's leave. I appreciate that the carer's leave is a matter for another Department, but the two schemes are interlinked.

The public are confused about carer's entitlements. There is the carer's allowance scheme, the new carer's benefit scheme, to which carers who leave their jobs will be entitled, the carer's leave scheme, which guarantees a carer the right to return to his or her job if he or she has taken 15 months leave from it, and the carer's tax free allowance and the income tax code. We need to ensure those schemes are dovetailed, as the public are confused about them. I ask that the schemes be co-ordinated to ensure there are no glitches along the way.

I am pleased with the increases in child benefit, which have increased by £25 per week. I see nothing wrong with the Government stating it has a programme to increase this benefit from £42.50 up to approximately £90 in two years' time. There is nothing wrong in it publicising its long-term intentions. The increase in the benefit goes a long way towards meeting that target. I am also pleased about the increase in maternity leave benefit and adoptive leave benefit.

Given that many social welfare recipients are old age pensioners, they will be confused when they get their increases in benefit on 1 January next year. The Department will have to ensure that old people understand the new currency when it is given in their pension books or bank accounts. That is an issue on which we will have to concentrate and to which special attention must be paid.

With regard to the child dependant allowance, I refer particularly to cases where a family is in receipt of unemployment assistance or farm assistance and receives an adult dependent allowance of £13.20. I received a letter today from the Minister in response to a matter I raised with him concerning this allowance. The reply states that child benefit is payable up to the age of 18 years of age, but where the claimant is in receipt of a long-term allowance, such as those I mentioned, it will be paid where children are in full-time education up the age of 22 or the end of the academic year after the 22nd birthday. As children are now starting school at the age of five and given the introduction of the transition year, I am aware of many cases in County Laois where students have not completed their primary degree before they reach the age of 23. In such cases where families are on farm assistance, they lose more than £600 per annum in benefit. I, therefore, ask that the age of entitlement be increased to allow the students concerned to complete their primary degrees. We do not want the age of entitlement to be extended indefinitely, but a poverty trap has been created in this instance with students completing the final year of their primary degrees when they are over the age of 22. I ask that this matter be addressed.

The free schemes, such as the free telephone rental allowance scheme, are very good. I have had detailed discussions on this matter with the Minister and I am aware that work has been done in regard to the free telephone rental allowance scheme. The free scheme should be extended as urgently as possible to people who opt to use a mobile phone, as it is easier for people to carry a mobile phone upstairs, downstairs, out to the garden and on their person, especially if they need to contact people, rather than an Eircom fixed line. As Eircom is privatised, it should not be given a privileged position. Free allowances must be available to telecommunications operators in general and not only to Eircom.

A number of old age pensioners have asked me to raise with the Minister if it would be feasible for the scope of the free schemes to be extended to include the dog licence fee. As the saying goes, a dog is man's best friend. The only regular companion many old people have is a dog. That request may seem trivial, but for many an old age pensioners the only friend around the house most days of the week is his friendly dog.

Mr. N. Ahern

I congratulate the Minister and the Department on the extra expenditure of 15%, £850 million, in social welfare payments. The total spend of the Department of £6 billion is very impressive and has rocketed in recent years.

Many people thought the commitment given in 1997 that we would reach the target of £100 in old age pension benefit within the life of this Government was a wild promise, but three and a half years later that target has been passed. The £28 increase in the old age pension is tremendous. The Pensions Board's policy is to increase the old age pension benefit to 34% of the average industrial wage and good progress has been made on reaching that target in recent years. The benefit is 31% of the average industrial wage, and only three more percentage points need to be given to reach the target figure of 34%. The benefit has increased by 3% or 4% in the past three or four years, which must be welcomed.

There are a few provisions in the Bill that are marvellous. The increase to qualified adults, particularly the £25 increase in benefit to a pensioner couple over the age of 66 who share an old age pension book, did not come across very clearly on budget day. That increase is going down extremely well. Many years ago the increase in benefit for such a couple was approximately £6, usually for the man, and £1.50 or £2 for the spouse, usually the woman. It is great to see that role reversed and that the increase is £10 for the applicant or the person qualified and £15 for the spouse. That is a tremendous turnaround. It is a real boost and it has been very much welcomed by women over the age 66 who never got a tosser from the State and who now feel all their years of work in the home is being recognised. It is great to hear that the Department will carry on this policy over the new few years and bring the benefit payment of the spouse up to the level of the non-contributory pension rate.

I approve of many other things, such as the living alone allowance for people on invalidity or disability benefit. Deputy McGrath spoke of his mean point, and similarly I have one little snag or problem. I wonder about the case of a widow of a person who was killed at work. Historically, such a person received about £17 as a top-up. A very mean interpretation was put on that in recent years, which meant that only a person under 66 received the top-up. When the widow passed the age of 66, the top-up was severely eaten into. I thought the Minister had committed to restoring it. I would specifically like to know if a widow over 66 who receives this top-up will get an increase of £12.90 this year, will she recover the £8 she lost in the past few years, or will the top-up be further eaten into?

The increases in child benefit are so enormous that I worry birth rates might start to rocket. I am nervous of how the Minister's generosity might be interpreted in certain quarters. I wonder if the Government missed an opportunity to tax child benefit, and to give more money to poor people who need it. The increases have been considerable, but like Deputy McGrath I fail to see the logic behind giving more money for the third and fourth child. If the Department is nervous about taking the blame for that, it can say that all parties in the Dáil Committee on Social, Community and Family Affairs recommended the higher benefit go for the first child.

I am interested in the booklet that comes out every year from the Conference of Religious of Ireland, who are a great organisation. Father Seán Healy and Sister Bridget Callaghan do great work, although they are a little sensitive at times. I value their yearly critique which has good information, even if I may not agree with it all. It is funny that 33 years after the issue of Humanae Vitae, the poor and disadvantaged have discovered birth control, according to Father Seán's critique. His examples this year seem to refer to lone parents with only one child, whereas in previous years he spoke of a lone parent with four children or a couple with 17 children. This year, when the benefit goes to the third child and subsequent children, his examples have just one child. Computer programmes will give answers based on what is put in, so I hope Father Seán will not be too annoyed when I point out that it is a bit rich.

It is great that unemployment figures are down, but there are still long-term unemployed. If the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment cannot solve the problem now, it never will. There is no logic in cutting back on the number of community employment schemes when people in my constituency are on the dole. Every unemployed person should be hassled by the Department into finding a job or a place on a scheme, even if they are seen as unemployable.

Community employment is vital, which is why the consultant's report which recommended a cut in the number of CE schemes is crazy. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will have to exert itself and get more CE schemes for people in disadvantaged areas. If there is a problem in filling CE schemes in well-to-do parts of the country, so be it. Many people in other regions want them, and people should be pushed on to them. It galls me when I hear of men in the 59 to 63 year old age bracket being told that they cannot go on a scheme because they are too old, their chance has gone and that they should sit at home where their children can see them with nothing to do. It is a crazy problem which should be addressed by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, who should take on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

This Department's CDP programmes are not the worst, but I represent constituencies that are being examined and planned almost to death. Every Minister is throwing around money that could be better directed. I wish more money was given to helping people to work and find jobs. Even some departmental CDP schemes could be looked at more critically. It should not be a case of employing activists and college students who are studying the poor. We would be better off to directly employ the poor, to give them a few bob to cut grass or do something.

There are too many programmes under this Government, although this Department is not the worst. Several other Ministers and their Departments examine and plan to death without directly targeting those who need help. More responsibility should be put on people to make a few shillings rather than their area being further studied and examined. I am sick and tired of looking at reports which seem to go around in circles, getting nowhere.

Mr. Perry

I wish to give way to Deputy Crawford.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed ? Agreed.

Mr. Crawford

I thank Deputy Perry for giving way, and I will share time with him. I welcome many aspects of the Social Welfare Bill. For many years, those in need have not had the opportunity to obtain the funds they deserve. The Minister highlighted the fact that pensions have gone up significantly in recent years. It has to be remembered it is at a time when inflation is militating against pensioners, who are the people who saved this country in times of difficulty. Some left the country and others are coming back, and they are welcome, but many of those who are on pensions today went through extremely difficult times. While £8 might be welcome, it is certainly not over-generous today.

I have often spoken of those on disability, who have been left behind with regard to payments. For a number of years they got much lower payments than pensioners, including non-contributory pensioners. The disabled often need more heat, among other things, because of their condition. At a time of reasonable wealth in the State, when there are billions of pounds that the Minister hardly knows what to do with, it is hard to justify leaving the disabled behind with regard to payments and militating against them in other ways. Some disabled people, who are unable to drive because of legal technicalities – this applies to all branches of Government – are denied the disabled driver's allowance for VRT and Vat. I know of one woman who lost a leg and was living in the family home next door to her son who was caring for her. After initially being given it, the allowance was cancelled on the technicality that the son did not live with her under the same roof. This family could have behaved differently. Another son who lived with his mother might have bought a car and claimed the allowance. They wished to be honest and the one who cared for the mother made the claim. This area must be re-examined at a time of considerable wealth in our society.

The Minister in his statement mentioned the number of people who have been included since he took up office. Immediately before he came into Government, there was an increase in the number of people who had been disallowed and the allowance was only increased this year from £150 to £250. We must ensure that people who need it get the allowance and the care. There are different levels of need. Those with the greatest claim, who have to care for a patient on a 24 hour basis, must be treated sympathetically.

A widow, who cares for the parent of a dead spouse, may have received the allowance while the spouse was alive but lost it on his death. She only gets the widow's pension. This could happen to widowers also. This is discrimination and must be re-examined.

The increase in family income supplement is welcome for those on PAYE and PRSI but the area of self-employment must be reconsidered. Small shopkeepers and other self-employed people have to close their businesses to get social welfare payments. The system lacks compassion and understanding. Previous Ministers have stated that they would not accept the accountancy figures produced by these small business people. That is an indictment of the system. If a person, self-employed or not, produces figures to prove his earnings are such as to make him eligible for the income supplement, he should get it.

The situation with farm assistance is farcical. It was introduced to maintain family farm incomes when the BSE crisis first hit. The figures show that fewer people receive farm assistance than received the earlier farm support, as small farm dole. Taking into account those who have changed over for technical reasons from widow's or other allowances, there may be less available under the farm assistance scheme. This Minister must examine his conscience in the light of the new BSE crisis and deal with farm income problems.

A constituent approached me yesterday seeking a medical card. His family was receiving payments under the farm assistance scheme. The problem was this: their daughter had to pay £52 to enter an exam and he could not afford it. There is a crisis in the small, private, non-PAYE farming sector. The Minister must examine this before it is too late and make the necessary changes in the Bill.

Mr. Perry

The social welfare package is increased by £850 million with a total estimated spend of £5.5 billion. This is a huge allocation of money. It is important that the date for increased social welfare payment has been brought forward to coincide with the beginning of the tax year, and next year it will coincide with the calendar year. The previous practice was that payments might not have been brought in up to six months later.

I am disappointed that only 5,000 extra people will receive the carer's allowance and 3,000 existing carers will benefit from the changes in the means test. It is estimated that there are 120,000 family carers in poor circumstances. Carers do valuable work which must be recognised.

The increase in respite grants from £300 to £400 is inadequate. This a seven day a week job involving huge commitment. The £800 for those caring for two or more people is not enough. This works out as payment below the minimum wage.

The amount allocated to foster care, £9 million, was small. People give dedicated service to health boards in this area and considerable additional money could have been allocated to it.

Another issue of concern is child poverty. It was recommended that child benefit should be increased to £100 per child per month. This amount is necessary given the cost of child care. The elimination of child poverty is one of the objectives of the strategy in this area. Ireland has one of the highest levels of child poverty and that does not reflect well on people's opinion of the economy. This matter must be addressed in future budgets. Carers also must cope with huge ordeals in the context of child poverty.

Many people on the minimum wage still pay tax. The budget was geared towards people on higher incomes. People earning £4.40 an hour or £176 a week still pay tax and this must be examined. Those at the upper end of the scale received an additional £1,000 tax saving, but people at the lower end, who are rearing children, are still paying tax. This issue must be considered.

People with disabilities should be in a position to employ personal assistants. I have met several groups in relation to this important matter. The adoption of my suggestion would create a huge saving for the State and the Minister must ensure that funds allocated to health boards are ring-fenced in this area. The employment of personal assistants would enable disabled people maintain their independence at home. The allocation for people with intellectual, physical and sensory disabilities is another important matter. While I welcome many aspects of the budget, it is important that funding is ring-fenced in these areas.

The estimated spend of approximately £5.5 billion is huge, but many people are still unhappy. This puts a question mark over the entire allocation and the value for money likely to be achieved. The Minister must ensure a large uptake of the funds and that people in need benefit. An extra £850 million has been provided, which is double the amount allocated last year. However, money does not solve all problems and administration is an important aspect.

As an employer, another matter of concern is the decision to impose a further PRSI cost of £159 million on businesses. This is unnecessary and unwarranted and it has created acrimony where harmony is needed. The decision to remove the ceiling on employers' PRSI has rendered the entire PRSI system grossly inequitable, complex and unnecessarily costly to administer. A complete overhaul of the PRSI system, aimed at a significant reduction in employer rates and the abolition of the 2% employers' health levy, is required.

I disagree with the decision to remove the ceiling on employers and self-employed PRSI contributions. The decision will impose a further cost of £159 million on businesses. Employers' contributions to the social insurance fund rose from 47% to 74% between 1987 and 2000 while employees' PRSI contributions to the fund have fallen in line with reductions in employment taxation. At the same time, the Government contribution has fallen from 30% to zero. One must ask why the private sector is funding almost the entire social insurance fund.

As an employer, my view is that the Minister must maintain a competitive tax/PRSI structure relative to our competitors, particularly in the UK. The number of insurance classes must be reduced because the current structure is very complex. It consists of a range of rates and benefits and the number of classes of PRSI contributions should be rationalised. For example, there are nine sub-classes in the class A PRSI contributions code. The system needs a root and branch examination.

The health levy does not confer any extra entitlement on those who pay it and does not remove any entitlement from those who do not pay it. Levies are not part of the tax simplification process and the Government no longer needs to raise tax in this manner. The 2% health levy is a taxation on employment. The exemption limits also pose a significant poverty trap for employees as their gross income increases and goes over the threshold. The net income demand decreases by 2%, thereby putting pressure on wages. The sum of £490 million is raised by the health levy, but, despite the buoyancy of the economy at present, people on the minimum wage are still in the tax net.

If the health levy is a tax, it should be integrated into the PAYE contribution and not dealt with separately. If the levy is not a tax and the moneys raised are no longer required, it should be abolished. The Government's budget figure was more than £3 billion and the health levy is not justified in such circumstances. I ask the Minister to clarify the future role of the health levy and the Government's plans in that regard. It is a taxation on employment and it does not give any benefit to those who pay it. Those who do not pay it have the same entitlements. If it is a tax, it should be specified as such and not a levy because it does not provide any benefits.

Mr. Aylward

I wish to share my time with Deputy Foley.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Aylward

In common with other Members, I wholeheartedly welcome the many improvements in the Bill and I compliment the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. In common with other Members, over the years I have made representations to the Minister on behalf of widows and widowers. I am delighted the Minister has made a significant improvement in this area this year. The important point is that the Minister listens to the views of Members not only at budget time, but throughout the year. He takes our views into consideration and goes to some lengths to accommodate our opinions. The Bill is probably the most practical example in that regard.

Members of the House deal with people in their constituencies daily and they bring views back to respective Ministers as to what should be included in the budget and the improvements that should be made. Thankfully, many of those improvements sought have been included. Many improvements will not be made and it is important that things said in this debate on the Bill will be taken into consideration at a future date.

We are in a position in which we can make significant changes due to our sound economic situation. That did not happen overnight either, but was brought about by much hard work and commitment on the part of politicians who seldom get much credit for that.

The Bill is to be welcomed wholeheartedly for the many ways it helps those members of society most in need. It builds on the Government's significant achievements in this regard since coming to office in 1997. If the performance of any Government or society were judged it would be on how we treat the weakest in society. Thankfully, in a time of plenty, regardless of how well the economy might forge ahead, the weaker people in society have not been forgotten and that has been the record of Fianna Fáil and of Fianna Fáil led Governments over many years. They have introduced many benefits and, though people like to demonise people like Charlie Haughey, the things he did in the 70s are relevant to people today. One hears that from the ordinary people. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is someone who has listened and is prepared to put into practice the points put to him.

Measures such as introducing the highest minimum wage in Europe and increasing the number of places on the back to work schemes by 12,000 to 34,000 have made a significant impact on people previously unemployed or working for low wages. I return to a point made by my colleague, Deputy Ahern, when he referred to community employment schemes. Although it is probably the responsibility of another Department these schemes are worthy and benefit many voluntary groups and organisations throughout the length and breadth of the country. I ask for the continuation of these schemes even in modified form. They will always be necessary, though perhaps they are not required to the same extent today as they were in the past.

Despite achieving the lowest live register figures in recent history the Government has continued to increase resources spent on social welfare. Spending has increased massively from £4.5 billion in 1997 to more than £6 billion in 2001. That is an increase of one third in just over four years. That speaks for itself.

If we were to bury our heads in the sand or if the Government got carried away with the booming, tiger economy we could forget about people and keep the social welfare budget static. However, we have not done that. We have increased it massively over the years. Obviously, if there are fewer people to pull from the social welfare budget, then those on social welfare will benefit most.

The £850 million package provided by the Government in budget 2001 for social welfare improvements is more than twice the size of last year's social welfare package and four times greater than that of the Rainbow Coalition Government in 1997. We hear criticism and it is no harm that we remember that fact.

This means that people dependent on social welfare will benefit, this year, from increases of between 10% to 18% which, in itself, allowing for inflation, is a massive increase. This Bill highlights the Government's continuing commitment to those in society who depend on social welfare payments for a decent quality of life. Thank God we have reached that stage today.

In relation to pensioners, the increases provided in sections 4 and 5 deliver on our commitments. I welcome the increase of £10 in the old age pensions. This follows previous increases of £5, £6 and £7. I compare this to the meagre increases of between £1.50 and £3 delivered by the Rainbow Coalition Government.

We committed ourselves to delivering an old age pension of £100 by 2002. This Bill sees that target achieved and pensions brought up to £106. This is only correct and proper. When everyone seems to benefit it is right that those that have given long service to the country for small wages over many years would be recognised. The Government has certainly done that.

We are also on target to achieve the £100 target set out in the PPF for the lowest rates of social welfare benefit. The £8 or 10% increase in personal rates of social welfare payments are welcome and will go a long way toward ensuring that those who find themselves out of work will not be left to fend for themselves. Fianna Fáil has always had a democratic ethos, a republican belief that all in society should be cared for and all are equal. While we make every effort to involve people in the work force we are committed to ensuring that those that find themselves unemployed are not forced to live in poverty.

Our efforts to bring people into the work force has seen spending on social welfare change from the situation where, in 1997, we spent £1 in every £4 of total social welfare expenditure on employment and on employment supports. Today the figure is down to £1 in every £7, while more than 30% of employment and unemployment spending goes to helping people to return to work and education.

As chairman of a vocational educational committee, I commend the Minister on the many initiatives taken on a constant basis. The Minister's Department over-laps with many other Departments and if I had more time I would say something about that, as the improvements the Minister has brought about in his Department are sometimes not matched with the same urgency in other Departments. I mention the Department of Education and Science and, in particular, the Department of Health and Children and, through our county councils, the Department of the Environment and Local Government.

Prior to the Government taking office, spending on child benefits stood at £397 million annually. Increases provided for in this Bill bring spending in 2001 to £761 million, almost double the 1997 figure. The monthly rate for the first two children has been increased by £25 and the monthly rate for third and subsequent children has been increased by £30. This is greater than the increases provided in the last six budgets. The increases of £25 and £30 are in contrast to the measly £1 and £5 provided by Deputy Quinn in his last two budgets as Minister for Finance.

This year's budget must be judged on a range of packets but one of the best decisions the Minister and the Government made on this occasion was ensuring that this major increase went in the direction it did. There were others who hoped and wished it would go elsewhere.

These increases will make it easier for parents and families where the costs of raising a family in the present environment can be off-putting. Carers are an important part of society and the Bill recognises that. The increase in the income disregards in the carer's allowance means test from £75 to £125 for a single person and from £150 to £250 for a couple will enable more than 5,000 new carers to qualify and almost 3,000 existing carers to receive an increased payment. This is a logical step and one the Minister might examine in the future for further improvements.

There is over crowding in many of our hospitals. There are people staying in long-stay acute beds costing significant amounts of money and we pay subventions to people in nursing homes. If it were attractive enough one would find that more people would care for their relatives at home. The way to make it more attractive is to try to improve the means test and to try to improve the level of payments.

One of the things that has annoyed me lately is that, every time we increase a subvention to a patient in a nursing home it is immediately taken by the nursing home. That crosses over to the Department of Health and Children but all these issues are interlinked and it is important that we go in this direction and that we improve on that.

In the past ten years Fianna Fáil has steered the economy to its present position as the strongest economy in Europe. However, we have not lost sight of those who are vulnerable and our primary aim is to ensure that everyone feels part of society and is allowed to lead a good quality life. I congratulate the Minister for his work in reforming and improving our social welfare system. In only four years he has gone a long way to achieving a social welfare system that went from one that simply compensates people for economic failure to one that helps people to help themselves. We are helping people to return to the workforce in a way that has never been tried. We are caring for older people, children, carers and people with disabilities to a standard never previously achieved. Fianna Fáil will continue to improve the quality of life of all our people, especially the most vulnerable.

I thank and congratulate the Minister and commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Foley

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on this excellent Bill. It is a declaration of the way in which resources are to be directed as never before towards meeting the needs of the poor, the underprivileged and the aged.

The Bill provides for increases in the rates of social insurance and social assistance payments and child benefit, improvements to the family income supplement scheme and the duration of maternity and adoptive benefit by four weeks. It also provides for the changes in PRSI announced in the budget, including a reduction in the rates of contributions payable by employees and the self-employed, an increase in the annual earnings ceilings for employee social insurance contributions, for optional contributions and the abolition of the earnings-income ceilings for both employers' and self-employment contributions.

The Bill is about spreading wealth and supporting the weak. In this the fourth Social Welfare Bill of the Government, we have witnessed tremendous progress being made in this area. Like my colleague, Deputy Aylward, I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Ahern, who has shown himself to be a caring Minister.

There is a substantial increase in the rate of old age pension. Over four budgets, the basic rate for old age pensioners has been increased by £28, an increase of 36% in four years and well above the rate of inflation.

The budget supported families. The family is the key element in society. The provision of a decent and comfortable quality of life into old age is a fundamental entitlement. A person's worth does not end in retirement. The budget focused on support for people with disabilities and carers. It provided, in total, for additional social welfare expenditure of £850 million, four times the level provided for by the rainbow Government in its last year in office. The budget provided for the most substantial increases in child benefit since its introduction in the form of children's allowance. This is only the first of three increases which will see investment rise by £1 billion by 2003, almost a threefold increase.

In the budget an increase in child benefit was announced of £25 per month for the first two children and £30 for the third and subsequent children, payable from June 2001. In this the first of three increases, a family with four children will receive over £300 per month or over £70 per week in child benefit. These increases will be payable to all families – those who choose to go out to work and use paid child care, those with informal child care arrangements and those who choose to work in the home and care for their children in that way. From June, a full three months earlier than usual, 532,000 families with a total of over one million children will benefit from the support the Government will provide through the enhanced child benefit scheme.

Expenditure on the school meals community programme is being increased from £100,000 to £300,000 per year. This programme was launched by the Minister last September, which shows his initiative. It provides for 100% funding of food costs for meals in established community schools and projects providing breakfast clubs, lunches and after school meals. Sixteen projects are being funded with over 2,000 children benefiting from this excellent programme.

I welcome the announcement that maternity leave will be extended to a total of 26 weeks, including 18 weeks paid leave. Provision is being made for an additional four weeks maternity benefit which will also be available to adoptive parents. The minimum maternity and adoptive benefit is to be increased by £8, bringing the maximum rate to £183 per week, an increase of over £10 per week.

A total of 10,000 recipients of disability payments are to receive an additional allowance, as are 15,000 carers. In last year's budget we welcomed the extension of the free schemes to all those aged 75 years and over, regardless of income. I welcome the provision in this year's budget whereby the free schemes have been extended to all those over 70 years of age. This recognises the major contribution of older people in society.

The fuel allowance scheme has been extended by two weeks. It will now be paid from the first week in October to late April. I appeal for a further extension of the scheme which is of tremendous benefit to the elderly.

I welcome the easing of the means test for the fuel allowance. To date, those in receipt of contributory pensions such as retirement pension or widow's contributory pension qualified for the fuel allowance if their income from other sources was not greater than £30 per week. This is being increased to £40 per week from the beginning of the next fuel season in October. This will be much appreciated.

I congratulate the Minister on the new carer's benefit scheme which is extremely beneficial to those carers who experience tremendous difficulties in caring and working full time. The scheme, which was introduced last October, allows carers to leave the workforce for up to 15 months and receive a payment which is not means tested. A unique feature of the scheme is the retention of the carer's employment rights for the period in question.

Carer's allowance is subject to a means test in which the income of both the applicant and his or her partner is assessable. The current applicable figures for disregards are £75 per week for a single carer and £150 for the joint means of a couple. These figures have now been increased. A single person can have an income disregard of £125 and a couple a joint income disregard of £250. This measure will increase the payment of almost 3,000 recipients of carers' allowance. It will also ensure an additional 5,000 carers will qualify for a payment. The measure will come into effect in April 2001 at a cost of £80 million, a huge increase in expenditure on carers.

The respite care grant, which was increased last year from £200 to £300, is being increased to £400 this year. The increase will come into force in June 2001 and will benefit those in receipt of carer's allowance, carer's benefit and carers caring for a person in receipt of constant attendance allowance or prescribed relative's allowance. The total allocated in 2001 for carer's allowance is over £100 million.

Section 25 provides for an easement of the qualifying conditions for the benefit to deal with situations where a carer is on leave from his or her employment in the three month period immediately prior to claiming the benefit. It is estimated that there could eventually be in the region of 6,800 in receipt of carer's benefit, but it must be recognised that it will take a number of years for the scheme to reach maturity.

Section 16 provides for the removal of the limitation on income support payable to a couple in receipt of disability allowance. The overall amount paid, where a married couple claim certain payments, may not exceed the personal rate plus the increase for the qualified adult. This measure will abolish the limitation on disability allowance with any other social welfare income support scheme. A total of 1,000 recipients will benefit from this measure by between £17.30 and £31.50 per week.

Section 17 provides for the extension of the £6 living alone allowance to recipients of disability allowance, invalidity pension and blind person's pension, irrespective of age, with effect from April 2001. It is estimated that 10,000 recipients will qualify for the additional supplement. The overall increase for this group, when account is taken of the general increase of £8 per week, will be £14 per week.

Section 13 introduces a number of improvements to the means test for social assistance payments, including the disregard for the purposes of means assessment under any social assistance scheme of income received by a claimant by way of an allowance for the boarding out by a health board of frail elderly persons. Section 20 provides for a change in the assessment of maintenance payments under the one parent family payment scheme.

I compliment the Minister who has shown himself to be a caring Minister. The initiatives he has introduced in the past four years are a credit to him and I trust that the budget in October will be successful from his point of view.

Mr. Penrose

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Sullivan.

I welcome some of the measures provided for in the Bill. I am not a person who comes into the House only to criticise; I offer constructive criticism in a number of areas. I hope the Minister will take such criticism in the spirit in which it is made because I know how important social welfare continues to be for a number of families. When my father was out of work, my family depended upon it and I have always been aware of its importance as a result.

I am amused by the plethora of praise because CORI had something different to say, not just about the Minister's area but on the budget as a whole. To be fair, it may have concentrated more on areas other than the Minister's. One group of people about whom I am concerned is widows and widowers. The non-contributory pension has increased from £77 to £85.50, an increase of about £8, and the contributory pension has increased from £81 to £89. The recipients are badly done by, especially at what is a vulnerable time in their lives. It is a meagre amount of money on which to try to survive. If any of us had to survive on it, we would not last too long. Apart from the amount, it is the vulnerability which is the key issue, and widows and widowers express that. Another area is allowances where a widow or widower is under 66 and his or her spouse did not qualify for allowances. That is an area we should reform. Free travel and various allowances should be given to widows and widowers at a point in their lives when they need every crutch and support the State can give them. It can be an emotionally difficult time for widows and widowers and we are not doing enough to help them.

Will the Minister examine their situation in the context of the next budget? I am aware there are areas upon which the Minister will concentrate such as child benefit, something I appreciate. He is right to focus upon it because it is money which goes directly to mothers, and all the various reports advocated that. Mothers have used it very well to support their children. As someone who comes from a large family, I remember that the first Tuesday of the month was looked forward to because various small items could be purchased for school going children. It is very important and I welcome the focus on it. Nonetheless, will the Minister consider the extension of the free schemes to widows and widowers under the qualifying age? It may cost about £35 million – I stand to be corrected – but it is something upon which to focus.

The free travel scheme is the first benefit people receive upon applying to the Minister's Department. For many people in rural areas, the first place to put it is often up behind the holy picture or whatever and they might never take it down again.

Mr. D. Ahern

My picture.

Mr. Penrose

Whatever type of picture. I do not say what I said in a disparaging way. The Minister knows there is no public transport in many rural areas. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is involved in an initiative in this regard in his constituency. The free travel is of no use unless a good public transport system is in place. For many of those living in rural areas, there is not any public transport system. The Department pays a set amount each time to Bus Éireann or whoever under the free travel scheme. I am a great advocate of the semi-State and State sector, but where it does not provide a public transport service and where public private partnerships exist to provide bus services, such as that in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's constituency, people should be allowed to utilise the passes for other forms of transport, such as taxis. I appreciate it is difficult to administer, but perhaps the Minister could stipulate a fixed monetary amount over which he would have control and which would be available to people in those areas where there is not a public transport system, to use for taxis, private buses or public private partnership transport schemes. The passes are only useful on buses and trains provided by State companies. We must extend the scope and utility value of the passes. Otherwise, they will remain behind the picture or over the mantelpiece and will not be used. I know people to whom the passes are not of any use. I do not wish to be disparaging. It is something the Minister should examine.

I am concerned about inflation and compensation for inflation, inflation proofing as it is called. My colleague, Deputy Broughan, tried to introduce an amendment to the Social Welfare Bill last year to take account of this. The increases in the Bill are not that generous. We sought a £14 increase, but that is always the way. We will always look for something more. Despite the increases, inflation erodes their value. The increase in the price of fuel, for example, eroded the real value of those increases to pensioners. Therefore, the reality was not as good as the announcement. Some account must be taken of inflation and consideration given to inflation proofing.

There is always a serious poverty problem for elderly citizens and other pensioners. One of the best schemes introduced was the housing aid for the elderly scheme. Even the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General did not criticise it that much. However, it is the one area on which I would criticise the Minister. While I know it may not be his area, he should get together with the Minister for Health and Children and ensure more money is available for the scheme. Elderly people live in abject poverty and poor conditions in a number of houses throughout the country. They do not have toilets or wash-hand basins. That may sound strange and it may be something the Minister may want to tackle in conjunction with the Minister for Health and Children, but it is something which infuriates me and makes me wonder if it is worthwhile. That must be changed. No one, especially an elderly person, must be left without the basic facilities of a toilet and washing facilities. People living in this country are without those at present. They may live down boreens or wherever, but they exist.

Another area is the carer's allowance and the increase in the respite care grant from £300 to £400 in section 14. That is disappointing by any standards. There was an expectation among carers that this would be doubled to £600. If we ever get back into Government, I will be disappointed if we do not give £1,000 respite care grants. It is very important and perhaps the Minister might consider that on Committee Stage. Carers are disappointed with the Government. There is no recognition of carers and the excellent job they do, keeping people in their homes rather than putting them in institutional care so that those people are happy in their home environment. There is no legislative basis for or constitutional recognition of the work of carers.

Debate adjourned.