Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 16 and 19 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
Social Welfare Bill 2003: Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of abolishing the means test for carer's allowance.".
Most of the amendments deal with the carer's allowance, particularly improvements to various benefits for carers. Considerable time was expended on this matter on Committee Stage and in previous debates in the House.
As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs I was delighted to introduce, along with my colleagues, a significant report on the rights and needs of full-time carers. This comprehensive report was launched on 27 November. Among the recommendations were the abolition of the means test for carer's allowance; a comprehensive system of needs assessment for carers; a significant shift of resources to home care subvention; the payment of a respite care grant to all carers; where a person has given up his or her job to provide care, a waiver of the 15 month restriction on the payment of carer's benefit; and, where a person providing care is receiving widow's or widower's social welfare payments, payment of 50% of the carer's allowance. This was to try to get rid of a significant difficulty. There is a deep resistance within the Department of Social and Family Affairs, and probably within the Department of Finance, to paying people a second social welfare payment. We recognise this in the report.
We received 80 submissions on this matter and spent 12 committee meetings discussing it. We were impressed by the quality of the submissions received and moved by several. I was confirmed in my view and that of the committee in undertaking the work that some of the best people in the country are involved in full-time care of people with long-term disabilities. We frequently hear the opinion that we are becoming a nation of selfish, self-centred materialists who care about nothing except our own increasing wealth and comfort, but that claim is easily counteracted – indeed, destroyed – by reference to the number of people who give up their own comforts, ambitions and, in many instances, careers to devote themselves to looking after a relation or friend who is in need of full-time care.
The report recognised that it was not possible to do all things at once. However, there were a number of serious and urgent initiatives that could be taken in the short term. The Minister indicated that the abolition of the means test would cost about €180 million – the amount has gone up €30 million since last year. She said this is a reflection of increased payments, disregards and so on. I accept that some positive work has been done but according to the Carers Association, it is widely accepted that the requirement to submit to a means test for receipt of carer's allowance is "unfair, inequitable and . . . demeaning to the dignity of carers". It went on to say: "We have been promised repeatedly that it would be abolished, but despite the repeated promises, we have again been let down badly on the big day." It also stated that the Minister for Finance had missed an opportunity to make his budget the magnificent seventh and instead it would be seen by carers as the miserable seventh. That is the context in which we are pursuing this issue.
There are many people who are working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, without respite care. For example, a women who contacted me and some of my colleagues has been looking after her 36 year old child who has Down's syndrome. She is in her sixties. She does not receive respite care because she is in receipt of a widow's pension. It is no use saying the respite care grant has increased if it is not available. One of the recommendations of the report, which was pertinent and comprehensive and could have been achieved, was that the respite care grant should be payable to people such as this woman. We gave other examples, such as that of a woman who looks after her elderly mother and whose husband was in a low income job. She was receiving some carer's allowance but unfortunately her husband died young and she now receives a widow's pension. Not alone has she lost the comfort and help provided by her husband, but she has also lost his income, small as it was, and her carer's allowance. The system is riddled with anomalies.
It is true that €180 million is big money. Contrary to what Senator Ross wrote about me in the Sunday Independent last week, if I must pay extra capital gains tax to ensure that €180 million is collected, I am prepared to do so, as a socialist. It is true that I invested in Bula shares and lost. So what? It is no use looking in one's own pocket to see what is there for oneself. That is symptomatic of the “me” philosophy that permeates society – the individualistic approach. I am more interested in solidarity and the community view we must all share. Some day I may be a recipient of social welfare so I must contribute now towards people who need help. That is the difference between the right-wing ideological view and the left-wing socialist view. There is a clear demarcation there. I believe we should find the €180 million and I am prepared to help the Minister for Finance find it so we can give it to those carers who are saving the State many millions of euro every year.
Carers do tremendous work for a pittance but they would love to receive carer's allowance as a recognition of their efforts. The essential concern for carers is that they receive recognition for the work they do. Meanwhile, they are saving the State millions of euro. That is why it is so important. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs knows about this and I know she is considering various options, such as a move to home based subvention. I appreciate what she is doing. She said she was setting up a review group and it is to be hoped the joint committee will have some input into this aspect. I accept the Minister's bona fides in this regard. I am trying to persuade the Government to recognise that the Minister should be given that €200 million next year. Deputy Ring, in his own inimitable way, said something about this issue. It is hard to paraphrase him because he has a unique style which I would never try to assume, but he said the Minister was capable of making a mark and he would even allow her to spend a couple of bob on consultants if he thought she would make a mark in this area.
That is right. She could make a big mark.
On the matter of money for consultants, the committee produced its report at no cost by working hard, although the media did not give it much attention. I salute the work of the committee and the Minister acknowledged it also. The report is a blueprint for the future and has a number of aspects which should be implemented.
I will finish with a quote which sums up a philosophy:
It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame,
It's the rich what gets the pleasure,
Ain't it all a bleeding shame?
The Carers Association states there are 170,000 carers, but I know the Minister says there are fewer because of the definition of full-time carers and so on. Some day it is to be hoped we will have a carer's database or register that will finish that argument. In the meantime, the €180 million the Minister said is required will be the best €180 million ever spent. I and my Labour Party colleagues are prepared to contribute to it, as are many Members of this House. I urge the Minister to consider the report of the committee as soon as possible and implement what recommendations she can. It might not be possible to abolish the means test tomorrow – we are realistic. However, there are a number of recommendations that could be implemented, such as those dealing with respite care grants and carer's benefit and the suggestion that carers should be able to use subsidised private taxi services in rural areas with their free travel passes. Employers will need an input in this regard but these are areas in which the Minister could make a significant difference.
On a point of order, are all these amendments in order? My understanding was that in order to submit amendments on Report Stage one must have spoken on them on Committee Stage.
No.
That is not the case. A Deputy need not have spoken on an amendment on Committee Stage if the amendment arises from Committee Stage proceedings.
If amendments are not already submitted on Committee Stage, can they be submitted on Report Stage?
Acting Chairman
No.
Can they be submitted for Report Stage if they have not been submitted on Committee Stage?
Acting Chairman
Yes, once the issue has been discussed on Committee Stage.
One can submit new amendments on Report Stage.
When I sought to table further amendments I was told the only amendments that could be tabled for Report and Final Stages were amendments that had been tabled for and discussed on Committee Stage. I was told that quite clearly at the meeting the other day.
Acting Chairman
Once the issue has been discussed on Committee Stage, the Deputy can table an amendment.
They would have to be mentioned on Committee Stage before coming up on Report Stage.
Am I correct in thinking that other people can table amendments after that?
Yes.
I wanted to be clear on that.
In the context of the information given at the meeting the other day, the matter needs to be clarified.
We were given incorrect information.
We have given much time and consideration to carers, carer's allowance and the various issues that need to be dealt with. The first four amendments, which have been grouped, give the Minister an opportunity to take on board the views contained therein and the collective wisdom of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. Fewer than one in six carers receives a carer's allowance, the current rate –€129.60 – for which, is to be increased to €139.60. Throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of carers save the State at least €450 per week on alternative care. If that care were not provided in the home, it would have to be provided in a nursing home or hospital. Carers save the State at least €2 million per year. It is in the context of that commitment in respect of carers that we want the Government to deal with the issue. We stated clearly, prior to the general election, that we would give priority to carers and their needs. I acknowledge small improvements have been made. There is no point in Ministers, backbenchers, or members of the Opposition saying they want this and that; there is a need to acknowledge the role of carers and put that in place.
On respite care services, the criteria for respite care needs to be more transparent and applied systematically to care for ongoing caring situations as well as crisis interventions. More extensive and flexible respite care services would make the shared care approach possible which, in turn, would allow some carers to work outside the home. The issue of respite care needs is covered in amendment No. 4. In teasing out this matter on Committee Stage and in the context of her commitments to us, the Minister outlined that an interdepartmental review group was being set up within her Department to look seriously at the issue of carers. I ask the Minister to give a commitment to link with the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs and endeavour to meet the requirements of our amendments. We are seeking that the Minister would prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of abolishing the means test for carer's allowance, the implications of payment of 50% of carer's allowance to persons in receipt of social welfare payments, the implications of providing that where a person gives up a job to engage in caring, the 15 month restriction on payment of carer's benefit be waived for as long as the care is required, and the implications of extending respite care payment.
If the Minister gives a commitment to link with us in the context of developments in the interdepartmental review, the spirit of these four amendments can be taken on board. This would enable preparations to be made well in well in advance of the Estimates and next year's budget. In this way, a concise report would emanate from the Department with an input from the committee so that all the issues relating to the carers, and carer's needs, would be up for scrutiny and decision making. The Minister for Finance would then be in a position to say, "These people have their work done, the Department has its work done and we will move ahead on a planned basis." Carers' needs must be put on the agenda and pursued vigorously. If the Minister can give a positive response to these four amendments, we can move ahead.
I am dissatisfied with what happened in the committee last week and I will write to the Ceann Comhairle. The information I received there differed from the information I received here today. I am disappointed but I will write to the Ceann Comhairle's office to have the matter clarified.
I support the previous speakers. I compliment the chairman of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs and the committee members on their work on the issue of carers. We put much time, research and effort into it and, as I said at the select committee last week, we did not employ consultants but did the job ourselves and saved the State a good deal of money. We invited all those concerned throughout the State to come before the committee. I thank all those who took the time and effort to come before the committee and make their recommendations. They are the people on the ground who are looking after people at home. They are the people who came in and advised us. Following their representations, the committee issued a very good report. It will not be easy for the Minister to take all these recommendations on board overnight. We are saying today that we expect the current Minister or the next Minister, whoever that may be, to take on board many of the recommendations we have made.
It may be the Deputy.
Something must be done. As Deputy Penrose said, it would cost €180 million to remove carers from the means test. Some 21,000 are in receipt of carer's allowance – 14,000 plus are in receipt of full carer's allowance while the remainder receive part of the allowance. Some 150,000 people get no recognition for looking after their loved ones because of the means test. The Minister went part of the way this year and I compliment her on the disregard. However, it was not enough. Irrespective of the disregards, there are those who, because their spouses are working, will not qualify for carer's allowance. We must recognise the work they do and the role they play in society. I hope in the next budget the Minister will deal with that.
An issue that causes many problems is the rule whereby one can be in receipt of only one social welfare payment. For example, a widow in receipt of widow's allowance cannot qualify for carer's allowance. We have suggested in our report that they should get at least a 50% payment. I ask the Minister to look at this issue.
The greatest scandal of all is the carer's benefit which is taken up by only a small number of people. Another recommendation in the report is that if people give up work and receive that allowance, they should not have to be assessed again after 15 months but should automatically be put on to carer's allowance if they want to continue looking after their loved ones. That would not cost much money. I hope the Minister can accept this recommendation and deal with it quickly.
In compiling the report the committee also discovered that, in spite of the Department's PR, consultants and advertising, a large number of people do not know their rights as carers. Last January, my post consisted almost entirely of letters from the Minister's Department, containing her photograph and telling us about the social welfare increases in the budget.
Is Deputy Ring on the Minister's mailing list?
Of course he is.
No, there was one for everybody in the audience and that is why I received them.
The committee received a recommendation from a school in Dublin that social welfare recipients should receive information about their entitlements in their payment books. This was a good suggestion. It would not cost the Department a fortune and would require no consultants. The technology which has been installed in the Department could be used to give this information on the payment book to carers, widows and other social welfare recipients. A contact number could also be given, although I hope people who ring the number would be able to get through. Sometimes that is difficult.
The issue of carers is an emotive one and people feel strongly about it. The nursing home subvention is available when old people are placed in private nursing homes. Most old and sick people want to stay at home and, if they are very ill, to die at home. They want their families to look after them, if possible. People wish to go into full-time care only when they have no one to look after them. Every report has shown that people feel safer and more secure when they are being looked after in their own homes. Carers save the State a fortune.
A few years ago, the Ombudsman stated that a person aged 65 or over who has a medical card and is in need of a full-time nursing home bed must be provided with that bed. However, the Government has not changed the legislation to this effect. Carers save the State a fortune. It costs between €900 and €1,000 per week to keep a person in a public nursing home. It would mean a great deal to carers if they were given €70 or €80 in recognition of the work they do.
Health board assessments must be streamlined. There are too many agencies and one does not know what the other is doing. It is important that they be pulled together, that one assessment would suffice and that a person could then be told his or her care needs and entitlements.
The committee also recommended that, when a person changes from one health board to another, the report from the old health board should satisfy the new one. A person should not have to deal with new paperwork every time he or she moves. The Minister could make this happen immediately by regulation.
The Minister went part of the way. She could be remembered as the woman who looked after the women of Ireland. She could be as famous as Granuaile. Does the Minister remember Granuaile?
She was before my time.
The Minister could be remembered as the woman who did something for carers.
The Minister will be known as the woman of the 16 cuts.
The Minister for Finance was not kind to the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, this year. I do not wish to be nasty as we approach Christmas. However, next year the Minister and her officials must insist that her proposals are accepted. The means test for carers must be abolished and the recommendations of the report carried through. I hope the Minister will do that.
I wonder if the Minister knows the story of Granuaile. She was a bit of a girl in her day. That may be what Deputy Ring is trying to hint at. She was the pirate queen. She robbed from the rich to give to the poor, in the good old tradition.
Another Robin Hood.
In the middle of November, 120 people were on trolleys in the accident and emergency units of five Dublin hospitals. This problem was compounded because 450 people were waiting to be discharged from those hospitals. Many of these people did not have suitable homes to go to. They had been left in hospital and the system was clogged up.
I spoke to a woman whose husband has Alzheimer's disease and is blind, aggressive, incontinent and in need of full-time care. He is only 62, which is young to be suffering from this disease. This woman used to tie her husband to her in bed to prevent him wandering during the night. He fell out of bed and injured himself and had to be hospitalised. The hospital is anxious to discharge him and free the hospital bed. It costs approximately €2,000 per week to keep someone in hospital. A place in a specialist Alzheimer's unit would cost approximately €1,000 per week. This woman could not afford to pay this, even if she received a subvention. This is merely one example of a family which is being let down by the system.
The abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance should be seen as an interdepartmental matter. The savings made in one Department could be used by another and hospital beds could be freed up. This is how a caring Government or a Government that works would view this question. It is crazy to keep people in hospital because we do not have facilities on the outside while carers cannot afford to have their loved ones at home. No one wants to see his or her loved one in a hospital or home. If the financial support is in place, people will avail of the opportunity to care for their elderly or incapacitated relatives.
These amendments ask that we examine the question of carers and review the means test. Some 21,000 people are in receipt of carer's allowance, of whom 14,000 receive full-time support of €139.60 per week. For a carer who is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, this amounts to 83 cent per hour.
The abolition of the means test would cost €180 million. The Minister may claim the Government does not have this money while we could argue about how we could get it. Banks made obscene profits last year but were not touched by the budget. People do not want to pay extra taxes, but in a time of shortage no attempt was made to gain extra funding from institutions which have made millions of euro in profit.
Depending on the level of care required, alternative care by the State might cost in excess of €1,300 a week. The Carers' Association referred to the saving of €2 billion a year by keeping loved ones at home. Will the Minister clarify in her response whether she accepts these figures and has made the case at Cabinet that, while it might cost €100 million to abolish the means test, the State would make savings in the number of people for whom families could care? She could put emotional and economic arguments to the Cabinet. I ask her to support the amendments but I know she will not.
Deputy Crowe might be surprised.
Maybe she will, but I doubt it. The floor might open up. Stranger things have happened. If she could do it, we would all remember her as another Granuaile, taking from the rich to give to the poor. The Minister will not be able to do it but a logical case can be made for this. It is not a large budget, either in the context of the Minister's budget or of the amount of money the State takes in. People do not want to see their loved ones in hospitals or homes and, if the financial and other supports were in place, many would take advantage of them. It comes down to financial support.
Members of the Opposition face the usual difficulties in seeking to amend the Social Welfare Bill 2003, it being a money Bill and we being precluded from tabling amendments that would result in a cost to the State. Given that much of the Bill concerns payments, we cannot propose that they be increased. There might be savings if we suggested that some of the payments be decreased. That might be allowed, but no Member on this side of the House will do that. Instead we propose amendments of this nature that challenge the policy position and seek information on whether policy is consistently followed through and whether it can be adapted in the course of the coming year and future years. There is a great demand for the policy on carers to be widely assessed and to be changed significantly in several areas.
The work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, chaired by Deputy Penrose, has been acknowledged and I would like to further acknowledge the report submitted and the work that it entailed. The ongoing campaign of the Carers Association points out many inconsistencies among carers.
The Minister on several occasions has said that the carer's allowance is not intended as an income maintenance measure. This highlights the first inconsistency in the policy. If it is not income maintenance, why does a means test exist? The means test is a way to justify the payment in proportion to a person's other income. If the Minister does not overcome that dichotomy, the problem of recognising the contribution of carers to our society and economy will not be acknowledged. It is only a partial contribution, as the Minister has said many times in the House. If she is not prepared to go all the way with some of these amendments, for instance, the 50% additional payment to those who already receive a social welfare payment, perhaps she can indicate how far she can go.
Is there a possibility of a 10%, 20% or 30% top-up for people who find themselves in the position of being social welfare recipients and carers? The information supplied by the Carer's Association indicates that it is a problem of large proportions because more than half of all carers are aged 50 years or over. This problem will worsen as that cohort moves into the pension age group. There is also the problem of the one in every five carers who cares for one or more people. There is a need for direction in these policy areas and for future resources to be identified and ring-fenced if we are to deal with the problem of caring in the future.
Parallel with the carer's allowance we need to take on board the idea of care benefit as it exists in other jurisdictions. It is part of the social protection code of many other countries where a direct payment is made to the care recipients that they can use in meeting their own care needs. There is an assumption in this argument that some provide care while others are cared for. It is an equation which we do not properly measure. Many of those in need of care want to be able to develop their own capacity and these are free-thinking creative people, especially those suffering from various forms of physical disability.
The many representations from the Centre for Independent Living for this type of payment to be developed and paid directly to care recipients outlines the direction in which we should move in this area. The centre has interesting ideas on the respite care grant which offers respite to carers. The option for care recipients is often to be taken out of a situation rather than to be properly consulted about and involved in the alternative care arrangements. It is a wider area than we have had the opportunity to debate properly. If these amendments, whether accepted or not, have value, it is in the extent to which we look at the broader picture of care needs for our society in the coming year and for future generations.
We have had long and protracted discussions about carers in recent years while I have been Minister. It is an issue that has been on the agenda for many more years. I reiterate my thanks to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs and sympathise with its Chairman on the lack of publicity he received for the work done. It will be valuable, however, for the committee, Members of the House and my Department.
I assure Deputy Seán Ryan that we are studying the financing of long-term care and I will consult the committee and listen to its views, especially on several issues raised in the debate. The consultative process will take place at the beginning of the year and I hope to establish a working group in the spring to evaluate how we progress.
Several people have raised issues that fall outside the parameters of the carer's allowance and benefit. For example, they addressed the issues of respite care and step-down facilities in the health sector.
They are part of the amendments.
The committee's report links particularly well with the nursing home subvention scheme launched by the Department of Health and Children with my Department's report, Study on the Future and Financing of Long-Term Care in Ireland, and will create great challenges for the nation.
Perhaps the best way forward with the carer's allowance and benefit will be linked to that and to see where it will fit into the long-term analysis. Should we examine another type of European model where people pay private insurance towards this contingency? Do we increase PRSI and ring-fence the increase for caring and carers? We must contend with the demographic changes of the next 20 years.
Deputy Boyle alluded to the purchasing power of the care recipient in determining the type of care he or she wishes to receive. All these issues are in the melting pot and a decision must be made soon to study the long-term issues because, even in the short term, we are not managing many of them. Long-term provision is not necessarily just for the elderly but also for those who have a disability or are dependent on care. Linking this with the report of the committee on social and family affairs will form a good policy direction on this issue.
When we advance the discussions, we will discuss targets and what the Government has set. We have exceeded the target set by this Government, which was to increase the income disregard. It was increased considerably this year. That disregard will enable an additional 1,750 carers to qualify and 2,100 existing carers will receive an increase in their carer's allowance. That is good progress.
We can discuss the issue of numbers. The CSO has given an outline of the number of carers. Approximately 22,000 carers are determined as providing full-time care and are in receipt of the carer's allowance or carer's benefit. Some 41,000 people currently provide 43 or more hours care a week or six hours care per day. Those are the parameters we set. Some 50% of those carers are determined to be full-time carers in receipt of carer's allowance. The respite care grant has been very beneficial. I was anxious that it would be increased again this year because it creates some space for carers.
The chairman of the joint committee does not need an introduction to what removing the means test for the carer's allowance would cost; it would cost €180 million. There are considerations as to whether that would be the best policy framework towards which to work. It is my view that we should continue to increase the income disregard. Consideration of this issue will have to be brought into the overall policy direction in which not only my Department but the Department of Health and Children want to go in the next number of years.
Of all the issues discussed in recent years, the most genuine, emotional and supportive discussions have taken place on the issue of carers. That reflects not a governmental priority but a priority among Members of the House towards caring. It is my fervent wish to proceed further with the expansion of the scheme. There have been issues concerning carer's benefits, some of which do not necessarily come under the remit of my Department but the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as in the case of consideration of additional weeks being provided in regard to carer's benefit.
There has been a major increase in a short period in the money available for this scheme. Some €46.46 million was provided for carers in 1997 compared to €165.8 million being currently provided. This position will progress further. We will take into consideration the recommendations of the Oireachtas joint committee, some of which we can address quickly in terms of providing information and tightening up on issues such as that.
I look forward to progressing the overall long-term issue of carers and those in receipt of care, and look forward to the co-operation of the committee and Members of the House in putting forward their views. I cannot accept amendments from the other side of the House on this issue, but the ethos of it has been accepted on the basis of the discussions that will take place on home subvention and on long-term care needs. It will be opportune at the beginning of next year to examine the framework, particularly the policy framework, towards supporting long-term care needs.
The major concerns of the Deputies present are reflected in the various recommendations of the report of the joint committee. There is a broad consensus of support in the Oireachtas and in Government for the actions recommended by the committee, which are endorsed in the amendments proposed by Opposition Deputies. I acknowledge the unity and solidarity of purpose of the membership of the joint committee in finalising the report and bringing forward recommendations. If they were acted upon with some alacrity and speed, the position of carers and their families would be transformed. There would be an end to the circumstances outlined in the examples mentioned by Deputy Crowe and me. We need joined-up Government in the form of interdepartmental co-operation whereby significant savings on the one hand can be utilised on the other hand to defray the cost associated with this area.
We will monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the report. That is not a threat but a promise. We will keep in contact with the many parties who made submissions to us and whom we got to know in the course of our work. Deputy Ring said the committee was engaged in hard work over some 25 to 28 hours. The Deputies present want to be a voice for carers and a force to promote an improvement in services in this area, which experience has shown is needed now. The timescale for the implementation of the improvements required is as important to us as the content of our recommendations. It is important that dust is not allowed to gather on yet another report. At least this one did not cost any money in so far as we can ascertain other than that involved members of the committee attending meetings. There is no substantive disagreement or controversy concerning this report. In it we have reflected the wider views of those involved in caring.
I received a letter from the DergFinn Partnership, which will be well known to the Minister who comes from Donegal, thanking us for the report and the way we brought forward the issue. However, he urged us to give carers some hope that the issue will not rest there, that progress will be made on it and that carers will see light at the end of the tunnel. That is for what I appeal. In the context of what the Minister said, we will not press this amendment to a vote. We will accept her bona fides in this instance, as there are a number of other amendments on which I wish to speak. All my colleagues present have signalled a motion of intent to vigorously pursue this issue. We will observe the work of the interdepartmental committee that will be set up and we hope to have an input into its work.
I exhort the Minister not to allow the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, or the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, who have right-wing ideological views on life, which differ substantially from the Minister's views, to dominate the next budget. We will be behind her, pushing her over the line.
Over the edge.
Over the cliff.
I urge her to make this issue a defining one in her Department. Deputy Crowe was correct when he said it should also be made a defining issue in the Department of Health and Children. The Minister has the Mercer report and the O'Shea report, and she now has the joint committee's report. Having regard to the three of them and bringing together their recommendations in the work of the committee that she will set up, we should make substantial progress on this issue. On the understanding that this will happen, I will not press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of extending the social welfare free schemes to widows and widowers who do not currently qualify in that regard.".
I acknowledge that the Minister tried to make some improvements to the position of widows and widowers in the budget to bring them up to some level of equality. It is a critical time for people, particularly under the age of 66, who become a widow or widower and may have two or three children to look after. For example, if a wife suffers the loss of her husband, there is also the issue that he would have been due to qualify for benefits at a certain age and that will devolve down to—
Age 60.
The Minister made the point on Committee Stage that there may be legal difficulties involved and other ramifications. However, in so far as she can, having regard to the good legal expertise available to her Department, she should try to improve the lot of widows and widowers under the age of 66. They are a vulnerable group of people who were left on their own, maybe with two or three children, at a critical time. I request that some of the benefits in the household benefit package be made available to people in that category. I am aware they are made available in terms of an age category. While there may be legal difficulties involved in what I seek, we would all extol the Minister to make such a move.
Most of us in rural areas know the importance of free travel, but a widow or widower, living perhaps where I live myself, ten miles from the nearest big town, may have no access to transport. There is a suggestion that people might be allowed use the free travel pass for transport other than public transport. The Minister might inform us how the cross-boundary extension of the free travel scheme is going regarding Northern Ireland. Many people who got the pre-1953 retirement pension, some of whom are in the UK, hoped that the scheme might be similarly extended to allow them come back and forth to Ireland. I will not raise Deputy Ring's hackles in this regard.
One might want to go to South Africa, or look for world travel.
Some Irish people in Camden Town and Cricklewood asked me about the free travel scheme when I was last there. I know the Minister is sympathetic in this regard and I urge her to consider the extension of the scheme.
I will speak specifically on the amendment. As a public representative, one of the great concerns in one's constituency is meeting widows or widowers who say they are the forgotten group in society. Their husbands or wives have died, they are raising perhaps two or three children and they feel they have been forgotten about by the welfare state. Many of them have no opportunities. They must look after their children and educate them. They have no opportunity to work.
While progress has been made over the years for such people who are over 66 years old, we must now consider those under 66. It is debatable whether all widows and widowers should qualify, or whether those depending on children should be the first group considered for assistance. This is part of the debate that must take place. Widows and widowers under the age of 66 feel they have not been adequately looked after, and the purpose of the amendment is to put that on the agenda.
I agree with the two previous speakers. Deputy Ryan is right in saying that widows and widowers are the forgotten people in this State. They have been so since its foundation. Many widows and widowers, particularly those with young children, have been left behind because their situation has not been recognised by the State. I support the amendment on the basis that the free travel scheme should be extended to such people. I trust that the Minister will let me know today what is happening between her and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, regarding the extension of the free travel scheme to Luas. I hope the news is positive and that all entitled will be able to travel free on Luas when it is completed.
Deputy Penrose touched on an issue I have regularly raised. The Acting Chairman is from a rural constituency and knows what I am talking about. The free travel pass is fine if one is in Dublin and can access the rail connections to various parts of the country, but in rural Ireland it is not much use when there is no public transport. The time has come for the Department of Social and Family Affairs to introduce taxi vouchers. People in rural Ireland have not got the appropriate public services. A system should be put in place so that vouchers can be used by people with free travel passes, people who, for example, are travelling to pick up their pension payments. Some people get great value from the free travel pass because they are near a rail line.
I compliment the groups set up to deal with rural transport. Their work is advancing and I am impressed with it. That is a separate issue. I am concerned however that in some cases where services exist, voluntary groups are also moving in. That cannot be allowed to happen. We cannot have State subsidy for one sector with the private sector being penalised. That must be checked by the Department when these schemes are being set up. I had one very serious complaint in that area but I understand it has now been dealt with.
The Minister understands that it is time that widows and widowers were looked after. Their payments must be aligned with other State payments. I would like to see major increases in their allowances over the next few years. It is a serious tragedy when a person dies and the husband or wife is left to look after the family. Every State assistance should be provided for such people. That has never been the case. We must now look at how we can support these people in their time of need. It is not just when people become pensioners that they need such help. It does not makes sense for one partner to be forced to raise a family on a modest State pension. Support is needed. The appropriate committee might look at suggestions and proposals.
There is no doubt that the free allowance scheme developed in this country is something in which we can take a great deal of pride. In many respects other countries are still catching up with the measures taken in this country. The Minister might even make a fair argument that they could be taken as an "in kind" additionality to some of the other payments being made. If I suggested that, the Minister might bring them into the PRSI net, so I will not do so.
I have no such intention.
Is the Deputy recommending that?
Far from it. I cannot give the Department too many ideas.
It is deadly even without that.
The intent of this amendment is to identify a group which should be considered for the extension of the free schemes. The Minister should also examine the qualifying factors for many of the schemes apart from free travel, such as the income limits which prevent some people from getting full benefit, and the rules on the residence in a house of other family members, regardless of the status of the others there. There are people in the categories involved, particularly pensioners, who could get greater access to and benefit from free allowance schemes if the rules were changed and relaxed. I hope the Minister will examine the operation of the schemes. I support the amendment.
I too support the amendment. It calls for a report, which would be useful. All these proposed changes are aimed at bringing about a positive change in Irish society. It is clear that this report would help the Minister and those who want to see the positive change regarding carers, of which we talked earlier. It makes sense and I do not see how the Government could vote against it.
As many Members are aware, we have made considerable changes to the free schemes. I agree with Deputy Boyle that they give additionality. Someone asked me to explain additionality but we all agree that these schemes provide it. They are seen by a lot of people as a great support network and we have expanded them to carers. We changed the rules applying to widows and widowers in cases where someone was previously in receipt of the benefit, so it would revert to those aged 60.
There was a significant emphasis on widows and widowers over 66 and the anomalies that were there. This year we have been able to address those anomalies and they have been sorted out. I agree that widows and widowers are a particularly vulnerable group. Quite often a tragedy is involved and people have to pick up the pieces and look after children. That is very difficult. My mother was a widow for a considerable number of years and I appreciate why people are concerned about the issue of the household benefits scheme.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.