Michael Ring
Question:69 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she intends to reverse her decision to discontinue the crèche supplement to persons on social welfare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17777/04]
Priority Questions.
Family Support Services.
Subject to certain conditions, a person whose means are insufficient to meet his or her basic needs and the needs of any adult or child dependant may be entitled to assistance under the terms of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards. The objective of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is to meet immediate short-term income maintenance needs. The scheme is not intended to be a long-term solution in any individual case and it was never intended to be an ongoing source of funding for crèches. The appropriate necessary services need to be funded directly in a sustainable and appropriate manner.
This approach has been successfully adopted in certain health boards. The boards in question, with other agencies, have put in place appropriate long-term sustainable arrangements to meet the needs of the families concerned without requiring them to apply for supplementary welfare allowance. I want to see that approach taken up in the other health board regions so that we have sustainable child care arrangements in place throughout the State. The crèche supplement was introduced with the intention of providing assistance to a parent in need of short-term emergency support. This could arise, for example, where a parent would not be able to avail of necessary supports such as counselling services or addiction treatment programmes without assistance with child minding. It was never intended that the supplementary welfare allowance scheme would provide ongoing support for crèches.
When the change was announced in November 2003, 1,738 crèche supplements were being paid. This figure represented an increase of almost 150% in less than three years from January 2001 because payments were increasingly being made for reasons which were clearly outside the scope of the original intentions of the scheme.
The fact that supplements were in place for long duration in many cases indicates that they had become a long-term child care support rather than the short-term social welfare intervention which was originally intended. In effect, long-term child care needs were being provided through a short-term emergency provision scheme. This is not an appropriate way to meet the needs of the people in question. Consequently, the changes introduced are necessary to refocus that scheme on its original objective of providing short-term income support.
I have held discussions with officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Education and Science and health board representatives to ensure a more co-ordinated approach to the provision of crèche and pre-school supports.
As an interim measure crèche supplements in payment prior to 1 January 2004 are being allowed to continue. Health boards retain discretion to provide assistance by way of once-off exceptional needs payments in any case where a board considers that the circumstances of the case so warrant.
As the Minster states, this scheme affects more than 1,700 disadvantaged children and their families. She has been lecturing us on her efforts to tackle the problem of social exclusion, yet to save €2.3 million she discontinued the crèche supplement, which gives disadvantaged mothers the opportunity to return and complete their education or be retrained for work to get themselves out of the social welfare net. A recent report showed that some children in disadvantaged areas——
A question please, Deputy.
Is it fair that children in disadvantaged areas are being affected by this? What provisions will be put in place to allow parents with children to return to education in September to finish the course or retrain for work? Will an appeals mechanism be put in place?
As the Deputy knows, the crèche supplement is an emergency short-term measure. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform measures for staffing and capital grants support women who wish to return to work. They have a prerequisite of at least 10% towards the payment of the child care or crèche facility. In the Eastern Health Board area crèches are supported 90% by the health board, with a 10% supplement from my Department. This would not happen either in the Deputy's part of the world or in mine.
If there is a policy decision that we should have State-run crèches under the auspices of the Department of Health and Children, it is the responsibility of that Department, likewise if it is under the auspices of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform it should fall to that Department and not be a short-term measure coming from my Department. On that basis I brought in several representatives and officials to discuss the issue. As I indicated in my response, until we finalise this matter I will continue the payment of the crèche supplements to those in receipt thereof since 1 January 2004.
I have provided significant support for people returning to work, particularly those who are long-term unemployed and there are other facilities where those provisions are made through other schemes. That said, the basic premise is that a policy decision must be made as to whether it is necessary to provide 100% State aid towards crèches in particular circumstances and areas. It could be asked whether that should be the situation in our part of the world. There is an inequity in the way in which the matter is handled. This funding was initially provided to support women, particularly those suffering from alcohol or drug abuse or domestic problems, in obtaining counselling services. That support will continue under the exceptional needs payment.
However, in pursuing this matter further it is quite obvious that we are dealing with an educational social disadvantage issue as opposed to someone who wishes to return to work or to participate in a counselling service. A fundamental review and analysis of the necessity for child care provision in certain circumstances, 100% funded by the State, must be conducted on that basis. I continue to do that and hope to meet with the relevant Ministers to pursue the matter further and finalise it.
All sides of the House agree that to have an ad hoc measure like this does not benefit the parents, the children or the full administration of what we want to see in these crèches. Other health board areas have been able to address this issue fundamentally whereas in the large urban areas, particularly Dublin, they have not been in a position to do so. I am pursuing this measure on that basis and on the basis that we have a new policy direction on child care provision.
Anti-Poverty Strategy.
Willie Penrose
Question:70 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if her attention has been drawn to the CORI justice commission’s annual socio-economic review (details supplied); if she will work to ensure the Government reverses its low-tax economic strategy and invests more in social provision; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17895/04]
I have noted with interest the recently published CORI socio-economic review 2003, which focuses on reducing poverty and achieving social inclusion. These are key objectives of my Department which we are pursuing through the implementation of the revised national anti-poverty strategy. The CORI review quotes EUROSTAT figures which compare Ireland's social protection expenditure in 2000 as a proportion of GDP with the rest of the European Union.
There are several important factors which must be taken into account when considering this issue. Ireland's elderly population is a third lower than the EU average requiring much lower expenditure on pensions, health care and care of the elderly and Ireland does not provide for supplementary pensions under the State social welfare system leaving these to be provided through occupational schemes, and by private insurance, the subject of the current PRSA campaign. Expenditure on these schemes is, therefore, not included as social protection expenditure.
The cost of the tax relief is not available to encourage people to make more pension provision; our level of unemployment is among the lowest in the EU thus requiring less expenditure on unemployment-related support. Furthermore, while Ireland has had low levels of investment in social and economic infrastructure historically, we are now financing a major catch up in infrastructure with public investment running to over 6% of GDP in 2002 compared to around 3.5% for the other cohesion countries, Spain and Portugal and 1% to 1.5 % for developed countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the UK.
The wider economic policies successfully pursued by this Government in recent years have resulted in very significant increases in employment levels; reductions in unemployment, particularly in long-term unemployment; heavy investment in infrastructure and public services; and substantial increases in real terms in household incomes at all income levels. The success of these policies is reflected most clearly in the sharp decrease we have seen in consistent poverty over recent years. Consistent poverty has fallen from 15.1% in 1994 to some 5.2% in 2001. The Government is committed to reducing consistent poverty to below 2%, and ideally eliminating it, by 2007.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Government's determination to continue to seek to improve the position of the most vulnerable in our society is reflected in the revised national anti-poverty strategy and in the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion for 2003-2005. These contain ambitious targets across several areas, including that of raising the lowest social welfare rate to €150 per week in 2002 terms by 2007. The implementation of these targets will ensure that we are brought further along the road to our overall goal of building a more inclusive society in which everyone has the opportunity and incentive to participate fully in the social and economic life of the country.
The way to tackle social exclusion and poverty is not by emasculating the various schemes the Minister and her Department undertook earlier in the year, such as the rent allowance scheme to which Deputy Ring referred, the community employment schemes and the crèche allowance. Fuel allowance has not increased for ages. Is the Minister aware of the report compiled by UCD with the Combat Poverty Agency which showed that one in ten Irish households suffer from fuel poverty? Help should be given for this appalling inability to provide heating in so many homes.
The Minister must also be aware that 25% of households depend on €140 or less per week. The UN development programme report in 2003 clearly showed that Ireland continued to have the highest level of poverty outside the US. Would the Minister agree this is a shocking verdict on the iniquitous policies of a Government which the electorate in the most recent opinion poll clearly regards as right wing and socially divisive?
Is the Minister aware that the wealthy have benefited disproportionately under the economic and social policies of this Government? Over seven budgets the Minister of Finance has allocated almost six times more resources to the top 30% of our society rather than to the lowest30%. Is that in the Minister's opinion a way to tackle radically the crisis of low Irish social spending clearly illustrated in the CORI report and backed up by the EUROSTAT report? How does the Minister propose to achieve our noble objectives of equity, fairness and social justice for all our people by pursuing such right-wing social and economic policies geared towards high earners? We have seen made to order tax breaks which benefit the very wealthy being added to Finance Bills at the last moment. Is that the way to carry on to ensure social inclusion?
I do not agree with the Deputy because we have quite ambitious targets which we wish to pursue over the lifetime of this Government, on which we have made several strides in the last budget, particularly in the €10 increase across the board with additional increases to other specific categories. On that basis it is our intention to reach the NAPS target of €150 baseline in 2002 figures by 2007 and to increase the old age pension to a level of approximately €200. We are well on target to deal with that and that shows the Government's determination to address the issue of income poverty.
We must take into consideration some of CORI's policy views when reading its report, which are not necessarily reflected in the Government's NAPS agreement. Most particularly we are not comparing like with like. We have low unemployment, low long-term unemployment and an increasing elderly population but not to the same extent as in other EU countries. Moreover, the indicators used by the CORI report are based on the Living in Ireland survey and not necessarily on the way in which we determine the figure through the consistent poverty indicators. I do not agree with the Deputy's view that we are not supporting those who are vulnerable, financially or otherwise.
We must move on to Question No. 71.
I wanted to ask a supplementary question.
Unfortunately we are out of time.
We did not commence on this question until 3.25 p.m.
There are six minutes per question and we are now over that time.
I hope the Deputy will not state that the Minister would not answer the question. I would be more than delighted to do so.
I am not blaming the Minister.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Dan Boyle
Question:71 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of disallowed payments in the year to date, that had been made under differently applying rules in 2003. [17723/04]
I understand the question relates to the effect of the measures announced in November 2003 in the context of the 2004 Estimates. These measures included changes to the back to education allowance, one parent family payments and certain child dependant allowances, changes in the conditions of entitlement to short-term social insurance payments and changes in the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, including rent supplements thereunder.
In some instances, including the back to education allowance and certain changes in unemployment benefit, the changes have not yet come into operation. In other cases where changes have been implemented, it is not possible to quantify precisely the numbers affected by the measures in question in that where there are disallowances, the specific reasons for them may not be recorded on computer payment systems.
Data is available in most cases on numbers in receipt of the relevant payments immediately before the measures were introduced and the current position. This data supplies some indication of the number of persons affected but it is important to note that the number in receipt of payments on any particular scheme can fluctuate for a wide variety of reasons, such as, for example, seasonal factors in the case of unemployment. As regards the one parent family payment scheme, where transitional half-rate payments were discontinued, there are now 460 recipients of such payments, a reduction of 120. In respect of short-term social insurance claims, the period for linking claims to previous claims was increased from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. The number of linked claims has increased by 2,800 to 21,900. The earnings threshold for payment of graduated rates of short-term social insurance was raised from €88.88 to €150 to restore the previous relationship with standard rates of payment. The number of graduated rates of payment has increased by 2,000 to 8,500. It is not possible to establish the numbers affected by the increase from 39 to 52 weeks in the number of paid contributions required for entitlement to benefit.
In the case of child dependant allowance payments to recipients of disability and unemployment benefit, there were some 63,000 payments of half-rate allowance in payment in cases where the spouse-partner of the recipient was in employment and earning more than €210 per week, the then limit. This allowance was discontinued where earnings exceed €300 per week. The number of such allowances now in payment is 46,000.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In the case of supplementary welfare allowance, the numbers of rent supplement payments have decreased since the beginning of 2004 to 58,100, a drop of 1,900. The number of crèche supplements has fallen from 1,800 to 1,450, the number of MABS supplements from 370 to 240 and the number of diet supplements from 13,580 to 13,180.
I re-emphasise that the changes in numbers outlined may be due in part to factors other than the policy changes made. I am satisfied the measures in question have been implemented in a way which respects the original purpose of the schemes and services in question. Furthermore, these measures produced savings which, in turn, were directly reinvested in a substantial 2004 budget package of €630 million. A budget package of this magnitude enabled the provision of increases well ahead of inflation for all social welfare recipients of weekly payments as well as significant general improvements in social welfare provision generally.
I found many aspects of the Minister's reply unsatisfactory. It seems her Department is not collecting statistics on areas about which she does not want to know. She does not seem to want to know the number of people who will be homeless as a result of her rent supplement measures, the number of women and single parent families that will be affected by the crèche supplement and the number of crèches that are likely to be closed or the number of people who will lose out on the opportunity of further education as a result of moves in respect of the back to education supplement.
In light of today's news that €500 million has been collected by the Revenue Commissioners through the voluntary disclosure scheme and that tax receipts are running far beyond budget projections, is the Minister not embarrassed that the cuts were introduced in the first instance. Why does she not have the political courage to rescind the remainder of the cuts? She was forced, by Members on this side of the House, to rescind the cuts relating to widows' payments.
Does the Minister agree with the view of her Cabinet colleague that inequality is good for the economy? I find her silence on that issue utterly inexplicable, particularly in light of the drubbing the Government has just received for the type of philosophies and policies it is pursuing to the detriment of the alienated and dispossessed in our society.
It is not my intention to reverse or change any of the agreements that were made. I am not entitled to do so because many of them were agreed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. As regards current economic buoyancy, it is not my intention, nor am I in a position, to reverse or change any proposals.
In respect of information being available, as the Deputy is aware, many statistics cannot be determined on the basis of other criteria. As regards changes in the social insurance fund, the permutations in social insurance cannot be seen until such time as they can be effected. On that basis, there is no possible way of providing statistics. The additional part of my reply to this question to be included in the official report and my reply to Question No. 69 provides the information requested by the Deputy on crèche supplements.
Will the Minister indicate whether the Government has been pursuing a philosophy, articulated by her Cabinet colleague, that inequality is good for the economy? As Minister for Social and Family Affairs, who is supposed to oversee the short-term measures required to meet the needs of many in our society who are without means, is she prepared to stand over the statement made by her colleague? Is what was said a fair representation of Government policy? If it is, the people have taken it on board and responded in kind.
The Deputy is referring to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who can answer for his own claims. I am stating that the Government's addressing of the issue of inequity is exemplary, particularly on the basis that we have increased the social welfare fund to €11.3 billion this year. There was an increase of €630 million last year. In comparative terms, I have the greatest budgetary support from the Cabinet. Outside of the Department of Finance, my Department is the largest spending Department. On the basis of low unemployment and a not huge increase in the elderly population, the policy of the Government is to address inequality through income supports and reforms.
Michael Ring
Question:72 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she intends to reverse her decision to discontinue the supplement given to recipients of supplementary welfare allowance who have been supported by the Money Advice and Budgetary Service in brokering a deal with creditors; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17778/04]
My Department has overall responsibility for the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, which provides assistance to people experiencing difficulty in meeting repayments on borrowings. There are 52 independent companies nationwide operating the service. The MABS programme provides money advice to individuals and families who have problems with debt and who are on low income or in receipt of social welfare payments. The latest information available from the MABS companies shows that some 12,000 people are currently availing of the service.
The MABS service does not provide financial assistance to its customers. Rather, it places an emphasis on practical budget-based measures that help people to move permanently from dependence on moneylenders and to access alternative sources of low cost credit. In 2003 I provided €9.9 million for the operation of the MABS service and an additional €1.01 million was allocated for 2004 in the budget. MABS supplement payments paid under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme were made by the health boards because the people concerned had entered into repayment arrangements that were so onerous they did not have enough income left to meet their basic needs. Some 240 people, representing less than 2% of MABS' customers, were in receipt of these supplements at 4 June 2004.
These supplements have not been used at all in three health board regions and were rarely used by the health boards serving the Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow region. The practice established in these areas, which cover the majority of the State's population, is now being put in place throughout the country. I emphasise that MABS supplements currently in payment are not being withdrawn. Payment of the supplement in these cases, will continue for the duration of their current term of agreement. At the time the decision was taken to discontinue the MABS supplement, more than 50% of the supplements in payment had been in payment for more than a year and almost 25% of recipients had been in receipt of the supplement for more than two years. The duration of these payments confirms that the supplement had become a long term arrangement which is effectively a subsidy for creditors. The MABS companies throughout the country provide support and expertise in a way that best assists people in sorting out their debts. They will continue to provide their services to people who need them.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied the decision to discontinue the MABS supplement is reasonable and will require creditors to take a more realistic approach to making repayment arrangements which debtors can afford to meet. Health boards may still deal with emergency or exceptional cases at any time by way of exceptional or urgent needs payments.
MABS is one of the better initiatives introduced by the Department. It was put in place because of the outcry many years ago from the thousands of people living on working class housing estates who, at Christmas and other difficult times of the year — for example, when their children returned to school — had to approach moneylenders.
I have spoken to community welfare officers who have informed me that what the Minister is doing is short-sighted. It benefited people who were caught in a trap and gave health boards an opportunity to help them rather than have them borrowing from moneylenders. The health board and MABS were able to work out a payment arrangement for people in financial difficulty. Health boards could provide assistance towards partial payment of debts. The arrangement was that the health board did not pay if the person being assisted did not honour his or her part of the agreement. Was it not preferable to have these people helped by health boards rather than have them involved with moneylenders? Moneylenders had to be paid on demand thus leaving a shortfall of money for food and other bills and allowing families to get into further difficulties which impacted on children.
Community welfare officers need discretion to make decisions in difficult cases. I urge the Minister to leave that element of discretion in the legislation. The amount of money saved will only be €0.7 million, which is a small amount. It is a good scheme which worked well and should be left in place. I urge the Minister to ensure discretion is given to community welfare officers to judge where payment should be made by the health board. This would be preferable to having people borrow money from moneylenders. Banks and other financial institutions will not give it to them because they are already in difficulty. The Minister should ensure community welfare officers will have discretion in such matters without contravening the law.
There will not be any change for those currently in receipt of payments. Community welfare officers can exercise discretion. A culture arose in certain health board areas, particularly in the south, that exceptional needs payments were given over a period of weeks rather than in their entirety for the purpose of paying off a debt. There is some merit in that approach, in that the individuals concerned were empowered to deal with their debt. On the basis of meeting people in the south, I agreed with them that we would examine the issue under the SWA advisory group with a view to how best to deal with it. However, I do not wish a culture to develop whereby the State is paying for people's personal debt at their expense rather than the expense of creditors. Effective protocols and good working relationships exist between the parties and the companies concerned. I pay particular tribute to credit unions that have been fantastic in working with MABS. We have been able to successfully support many people and give them the necessary skills to manage their finances on the basis of empowerment through the companies.
It is not the intention to take a certain amount of money to deal with an issue. That is not the way to do it. I gave an undertaking that we might proceed on the basis of the way in which the exceptional needs payment is used. Exceptional needs payments made in consultation with the MABS service can still continue.
Willie Penrose
Question:73 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if there has been further progress made in implementing the 15 recommendations contained in November 2003 report, The Position of Full-Time Carers, from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, specifically the recommendation for the abolition of the means test for the carer’s allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17896/04]
Supporting carers in society has been a priority of the Government since 1997. Over that period weekly payment rates to carers have been greatly increased, qualifying conditions for carer's allowance have been significantly eased, coverage of the scheme has been extended and new schemes such as carer's benefit and the respite care grant have been introduced.
The long-term care agenda is an important aspect of social policy with major financial and other implications and I am determined, together with my colleague the Minister for Health and Children, to move this agenda on by developing a framework for the future of long-term care. The report of the Oireachtas committee, which I have examined, makes a range of recommendations, many of which relate to my Department and a number of which concern the Department of Health and Children.
I am always prepared to consider changes to existing arrangements where these are for the benefit of recipients and are financially sustainable within the resources available to me. The Oireachtas joint committee's report recommends the abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance, which could cost in the region of €180 million per annum. It is questionable whether it would be the best use of such resources in light of other competing demands. I accept there are differing views on this issue.
Carer's benefit is a social insurance payment for a person who leaves employment to care for another person and which lasts for up to 15 months. The committee proposed the 15 months limit should be waived where the person continues to provide care. In this regard present arrangements include the provision of job-protected leave of absence for up to 15 months with employers obliged to maintain the employee's employment rights for this period. Any extension of carer's benefit would, in addition to the direct cost implications, have implications for carer's leave as well. I consider 15 months to be a reasonable period of leave in the circumstances. If there is an ongoing care requirement, a person may be entitled to carer's allowance.
The committee also recommended improvements in the information available to carers. I am pleased to have been able to provide funding of €18,000 to the Carer's Association towards the publication and distribution of a new information pack which will provide information about services and supports for carers and their families. The information pack is currently being complied by the association and will be distributed throughout the country in libraries, health board offices, clinics, citizen information centres and social welfare offices by the end of the year. It will contain important information on the services and supports available to carers and their families. The committee also made a number of specific recommendations on the respite care grant and other issues relating to carers which will be considered in the context of future improvements in the scheme in a budgetary context.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Regarding the long-term care agenda, I note the committee has examined the, Study to Examine the Future Financing of Long-term Care in Ireland, which I launched last year. My Department recently circulated a consultation document on this study, which aims to focus interested parties on the specific complex issues we need to address in the policy development process. These include benefit design, delivery, cost and financing, which are discussed at length in the report. The document has been circulated to more than 70 interested parties including the Oireachtas committees, health boards, interest groups and the social partners. These organisations and groups have been asked to consider a number of issues and to reply to the Department by 16 July.
The analysis of the feedback from this process will be the starting point for meeting the commitment in Sustaining Progress in regard to examining the strategic policy, cost and service delivery issues associated with the care of older people. I hope the working group to conduct this examination can be established in October 2004.
What is required is additional social expenditure in this area. A total of €500 million in additional revenue has come into the coffers of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy and Mr. Frank Daly, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners has said there is more to come. I appeal to the Minister not to allow social expenditure to become the victim of the straitjacket of the Minister for Finance's ideological thinking. That is the kernel of the issue. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs requires €250 million. Why does she not get some of it in order to abolish the means test, introduce a comprehensive system of needs assessment for carers, shift a significant portion of resources to home care subvention and give respite care to all carers?
Some 50% of carer's allowance should be paid where a person who provides care is a recipient of widow's or widower's social welfare payments. With the reversal of the decision on widow's and widower's payments and the one family payment, we have already established it is possible to pay 50%.
While canvassing for the election I met a widow who was a carer. She was in tears, not for financial reasons but because she felt nobody cared about her although she is saving the State millions of euros. There are many more like her. If the Minister wants to find out why the Government did badly in the election, she should ask the 150,000 carers across the country who feel let down. As I previously indicated in the House, I do not intend to let them down. I will fight for them in every corner to articulate their concerns. All they want is recognition. Will the Minister please give it to them? When the Minister goes to see the Minister for Finance in six weeks' time, we will be in her corner. Let us take on this right-wing ideology that deprives 150,000 carers of something that only amounts to token recognition in any event. I urge the Minister to do the right thing and look after carers. She has started to do this by taking one of the committee's recommendations on board but there are a number of other issues that need to be prioritised. Will the Minister please implement that report, which is an all-party committee report? I would be surprised if the matter does not rear its head this evening at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting.
The Deputy would be most welcome in my corner, but he will also have to go upstairs to the fifth floor.
The Minister might need us this evening.
I will go up with the Minister.
Some of the Deputy's colleagues might not be too enamoured with that. I appreciate the Deputy has a personal regard for the issue of carers. Yes, I implemented the initial recommendation. As the Deputy is aware, we are also examining the issue of long-term care. I asked the committee to reply to me by 16 July with its views. I also asked others to be part of that discussion. We reviewed the issue of carer's allowance. A number of issues have been raised ad infinitum on the floor of the House; one is the respite care grant which gives a great deal of solace to people, another is the situation of widows and widowers. A high proportion of people over 65 are caring for people.
No doubt one would easily obtain political gain on the fundamental issue of the removal of the means test. However, I am not sure it is the right thing to do. It is suggested we remove the means test on the basis of inequity. However, there will equally be inequality where people who have more than adequate resources to pay will be included in the scheme. We must analyse the fundamental questions of whether somebody who earns €500,000 is entitled to obtain the carer's allowance if he or she fulfils all the other requirements and whether that is the best use of resources. Many of us would rightly question that entitlement. We will always have a means test as a consequence. This is the fundamental issue.
We saw the implications of the abolition of a means test in other decisions, for example the issue of the free medical card to people over 70 years of age. That was good, progressive and warranted. However, many people over the age of 70 are multimillionaires. My view is that we should increase the thresholds adequately to ensure that more people can avail of the carer's allowance. I wholeheartedly support progress in this area and believe home care subvention is an important advance in dealing with the issue of the increase in our elderly population which will come about over the next 20 years.