Vol. 747 No. 4
1 Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Social Protection the amount of money reimbursed by her Department to employers for sick leave in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011; her plans to review this system; if she has had discussions with employer groups on the issue in relation to the budget 2012; if a cost-impact analysis on business has been undertaken; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [36438/11]
To set the question of statutory sick pay in context, the total expenditure by my Department in 2010 on payments in respect of illness and disability to almost 250,000 beneficiaries amounted to more than €2.8 billion. In 2001 the number of beneficiaries was less than 174,000 and expenditure was some €1.1 billion. A table setting out these figures in detail follows.
The total amount in illness benefit paid in each of the years specified by the Deputy is: 2006, €627.6 million; 2007, €755.1 million; 2008, €852.3 million; 2009, €919.8 million; and 2010, €942.8 million. Expenditure on illness benefit in that five year period amounted to more than €4 billion, while annual expenditure on the scheme has almost trebled in the past ten years. Expenditure in the current year will be at broadly the same level as 2010, when some 330,000 illness benefit claims were awarded.
Introducing a scheme of statutory sick pay is one of a range of options being examined with a view to reforming the social welfare system to bring it into line with practices in other countries, addressing the deficit in the social insurance fund and meeting the commitments which the previous Government entered into with the European Union, the IMF and the ECB to achieve substantial reductions in current spending.
Depending on how it is structured, a statutory sick pay scheme has the potential to achieve considerable savings. I am conscious of the pressures many employers face, particularly in the SME sector, and any statutory sick pay scheme will seek to take account of these concerns to the greatest extent possible. Some of the employers' concerns were outlined to me during a meeting I held with IBEC last week. However, such a scheme is the norm among most EU member states. The extent to which employers are liable varies significantly, with a figure of two years in the Netherlands, 28 weeks in Britain and north of the Border and nine days in Finland.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The specific manner in which such schemes operate varies considerably in terms of coverage, payment rates and compensation for certain employers. It is also the case that statutory sick pay will tend to stimulate and incentivise employers, both in the private and public sectors, to take a more active role in managing absenteeism. In the Netherlands, for example, rates of absenteeism fell from 10% to 4% following the introduction of a statutory sick pay scheme.
The House will be aware also that the rate of social insurance paid by employers is low in Ireland when compared to most other EU member states, with the result that the social insurance fund is now in deficit. In order to address that deficit, the choices we face are to increase social insurance rates, including for employers, reduce benefit rates and coverage or adjust the payment model in a manner which would require employers to share the costs associated with short-term sickness but which would also give them a greatly enhanced role in the management of that cost.
|
Year |
Illness Benefit |
Disability Allowance |
Invalidity Pension |
Occupational Injury Benefit |
Blind Pension |
Total |
||||||
|
Recipients |
Cost (€m) |
Recipients |
Cost (€m) |
Recipients |
Cost (€m) |
Recipients |
Cost (€m) |
Recipients |
Cost (€m) |
Recipients |
Cost (€m) |
|
|
2001 |
50,715 |
329,897 |
57,655 |
332,308 |
50,615 |
354,459 |
12,540 |
70,496 |
2,125 |
13,156 |
173,650 |
1,100,316 |
|
2002 |
54,590 |
385,297 |
62,783 |
407,585 |
52,147 |
403,617 |
12,844 |
77,018 |
2,095 |
14,221 |
184,459 |
1,287,738 |
|
2003 |
57,464 |
433,455 |
67,720 |
463,608 |
53,414 |
440,263 |
13,014 |
78,757 |
2,061 |
14,816 |
193,673 |
1,430,899 |
|
2004 |
58,726 |
479,611 |
72,976 |
544,489 |
55,864 |
487,375 |
13,393 |
82,657 |
2,027 |
15,868 |
202,986 |
1,610,000 |
|
2005 |
61,845 |
540,245 |
79,253 |
630,728 |
58,352 |
548,285 |
13,738 |
88,057 |
1,985 |
16,661 |
215,173 |
1,823,976 |
|
2006 |
65,774 |
627,642 |
83,697 |
738,431 |
51,954 |
602,414 |
13,908 |
95,988 |
1,476 |
16,964 |
216,809 |
2,081,439 |
|
2007 |
70,404 |
755,077 |
89,048 |
901,131 |
53,956 |
618,133 |
14,214 |
104,349 |
1,474 |
15,031 |
229,096 |
2,393,721 |
|
2008 |
73,609 |
852,305 |
95,754 |
1,052,660 |
53,725 |
685,717 |
14,563 |
112,014 |
1,472 |
16,319 |
239,123 |
2,719,015 |
|
2009 |
77,665 |
919,783 |
99,576 |
1,142,769 |
52,922 |
681,642 |
14,564 |
112,336 |
1,467 |
162,77 |
246,194 |
2,872,807 |
|
2010 |
81,253 |
942,836 |
101,111 |
1,109,549 |
50,766 |
640,007 |
14,930 |
104,884 |
1,485 |
16,033 |
249,545 |
2,813,309 |
I do not know if the Minister has met representatives of ISME in addition to those of IBEC. ISME has stated the proposed change could be the death blow for the retail sector. Businesses will be facing an increase of 2% in VAT on top of commercial rates at a time when their turnover and retail spending have reduced. This will be a further imposition on employers and appears to be anti-jobs. Will the Minister elaborate on any discussions she might have had with IBEC and ISME and their response to the proposal? It will, in effect, amount to a sick leave tax on businesses in direct contrast with the Government's rhetoric on job creation. How do IBEC and ISME understand the effects of the proposal? Has a cost-impact analysis been undertaken to assess the effect on employers?
All our competitors, including those countries which have good social protection systems, have followed the advice of the OECD to develop schemes of statutory sick pay, under which the cost for the first few days is taken care of by the employee before the employer and, after a period of time, the state steps in. North of the Border and in Britain the period is 28 weeks. We are proposing that in this country employers take responsibility for a period of four weeks.
In regard to how businesses operate in other jurisdictions, our competitors are acting in line with the recommendations of the OECD which recommended these reforms because illness days claimed constitute a significant cost to businesses and social insurance systems. This year we have spent €940 million on illness benefit and a further €1.8 billion on disability and invalidity allowances. We have one of the lowest contribution rates of employee and employer social insurance in the OECD.
We have had a broad outline discussion with IBEC. Introducing a scheme of this nature would require detailed legislation and further consultation with trade unions and employers.
Has the Minister met representatives of ISME and other representative associations of small businesses and retailers? Many employers in that sector have been pushed into unemployment in recent years and do not have the cushion others have in terms of access to the social protection system. I acknowledge that in the budget cost neutral measures may be introduced in this regard. It is only right and proper that a safety net be provided, given that the sector has been forgotten in the past 12 to 18 months.
I regret that the opportunity was not taken during the Celtic tiger years to build a structure of contributions by employees and employers to offer the social protections to which most of us aspire. It is unfortunate these reforms were not made when the money was available. Fianna Fáil in government signed the EU-IMF deal this time last year. The troika has been investigating the areas in which our structures differ from those in other countries. Several countries have social protection systems that we would envy to share the burden because the important aspect is managing absences in a way that makes provision for those who are ill, while reducing the taking of illness leave unnecessarily. This can apply in the public as well as the private sector.
2 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on whether the public can have confidence that the steering committee appointed to monitor the jobbridge scheme will work objectively and independently to prevent exploitation, displacement and abuse in view of the fact the committee chair is CEO of a company that is enjoying the benefits of having eight interns under the scheme. [36440/11]
JobBridge, the national internship scheme came into operation on 1 July 2011. As of Friday, 18 November a total of 2,712 individuals had commenced an internship and there were a further 2,591 internships available to be filled. JobBridge is a Government scheme, which is being administered by the Department of Social Protection in line with normal accounting procedures. I have appointed a steering group chaired by Mr. Martin Murphy, managing director of Hewlett Packard Ireland. The steering group, which has my full confidence, contains representatives from Glen Dimplex, the National Youth Council of Ireland, my Department, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and FÁS.
The steering group has played a leading role in the promotion of JobBridge to the business community and has been a key factor in securing its very welcome support and participation in the scheme. Companies participating in the scheme, including HP, are providing interns with opportunities to secure invaluable work experience that will enhance their employability. Hewlett Packard's participation in JobBridge is a sign of its commitment to and belief in the value of the scheme and the vital support it will offer thousands of jobseekers.
All organisations participating in the JobBridge scheme are required to abide by the criteria of the scheme, including the specific measures which have been designed to prevent the abuse of the scheme by employers, protect the intern from exploitation and ensure the integrity of the JobBridge scheme. The scheme provides valuable talent to employers based on the enthusiasm, energy and application of the intern. The conditions include the following: that the internship does not allow the intern to work unsupervised; that the internship is not displacing an employee; and that the intern accrues significant experience throughout the entire internship.
In addition, all host organisations must comply with the monitoring requirements of the scheme, including completion of the monthly compliance reports and the standard internship agreement with their interns. This agreement clearly stipulates the terms of the internship and states the specific learning outcomes the intern will receive over the course of his or her internship.
The question refers to the managing director of a company. Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House.
I had not intended naming the person in question but the Minister has already done so.
Six weeks ago I debated the JobBridge issue with the Minister and at the time I provided many examples of blatant exploitation and job displacement under the scheme at that time. I urged her to acknowledge that the scheme disincentivises job creation and facilitates the equivalent of slave labour. She dismissed it at the time but I am again asking questions about the scheme. Is the Minister satisfied that the steering committee is chaired by the managing director of Hewlett Packard, whom she mentioned earlier? She mentioned that Hewlett Packard is participating in the scheme and has at least eight free workers courtesy of the scheme. Does the Minister not accept this represents a clear conflict of interest between the person chairing the steering committee and the objective of the scheme? Does she not accept that the company of the man charged by her with impartially monitoring JobBridge is actively benefiting from such a scheme?
The Minister's party is often regarded as the political sister of the trade union movement. The law in this State specifically obliges trade union recognition. Is she aware that Hewlett Packard is one of the most anti-union companies operating in the country? Is she aware that Hewlett Packard routinely refuses to recognise trade unions to the extent that in an outsource and transfer situation members of the Irish Bank Officials Association, IBOA, were forced to take industrial action to get recognition from Hewlett Packard? Does she still stand over that appointment?
The Deputy continually seems to take a negative view of opportunities that have now been made available to 2,700 mostly young people to get a foot on the ladder of employment. Some weeks ago I launched a scheme whereby through Job Skills engineers who had lost their jobs in the construction industry were getting a new chance at employment and switching over to working in medical devices and related areas of activity.
Countries such as Germany, which have managed to keep their unemployment rates much lower than here, have a variety of initiatives that allow people to gain vital work experience. Only last week the Deputy's colleague in the Seanad, Senator Ó Clochartaigh, lamented that lone parents in his area could not access the scheme and he asked me to open the scheme to a wider group of people. I understand why the Senator would have wanted it: the feedback from JobBridge is quite positive. We have been evaluating it on a continual basis and want all the leading Irish companies involved, including the company the Deputy mentioned, because it gives a chance to a person who could not otherwise get a foot into the door of employment.
I would love to have a proper internship scheme, similar to what exists in other countries. However, we do not have the proper procedure here to date. That is why I have highlighted some of the negative experiences and abuse of the scheme. I have repeatedly asked for changes. I will give an example.
The Deputy should ask a question.
Is the Minister aware that according to the JobBridge website and her responses to me six weeks ago, the purpose of the scheme is to provide experience to people who cannot get a job because they do not have experience? However, various internship advertisements on the website unashamedly pronounce that two to four years' experience is required to get a position. How can she square that circle? They cannot, on the one hand, claim that this is to gain experience and on the other hand prevent people from getting the internship because they do not have two to four years' experience.
Does the Minister accept that there is a real problem with the scheme? Is she aware that in 2010 the US Department of Labor produced six criteria covering internships? One of those criteria provides that the employer can only get an intern for free if it derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern. This is designed to ensure that the internship must be a benevolent act by the employer and not exploitation.
The scheme that operates north of the Border, where the Deputy's party is a participant in government, and in the UK is far less advantageous to the intern. The Deputy must realise that to open up the possibility of getting work again people, who are now coming out of training having changed direction because the construction sector in which they had been working hard has collapsed, need to get experience. The return to employers is that they get the initiative, enthusiasm and energy of the person seeking to gain work experience in the area. There is a win-win for both parties.
The Deputy has employed people and knows employers put in significant effort when taking somebody on, in terms of the training, working with them and identifying what they will do. Employers make a commitment with the State continuing to pay the person's social welfare plus an additional €50. It is not for everybody, but for some people it represents potentially extremely valuable experience. I hope the Deputy will gradually come to appreciate that.
3 Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan asked the Minister for Social Protection if habitual residence does not apply to returning Irish emigrants, as is outlined by the EU guidelines (details supplied), when seeking social welfare; the reason local welfare offices continue to demand that returning Irish emigrants prove their habitual residence; the number of Irish nationals who were or are aware of these guidelines and have been denied benefits because they have been outside the country for a few years, almost forcing persons to seek work in another country again; and the measures she will take to ensure that welfare officers are fully informed on the application of habitual residence criteria to Irish citizens returning from abroad. [36442/11]
The requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for certain social assistance schemes and child benefit with effect from 1 May 2004. The effect of the condition is that a person whose habitual residence is elsewhere would not normally be entitled to social welfare assistance or child benefit payments on arrival in Ireland.
The reference from the guidelines quoted by the Deputy does not mean the habitual residence condition does not apply to returning Irish emigrants. Rather its purpose is to clarify that, once satisfied, HRC can apply from the date of return. Irish nationals returning to live here on a permanent basis should experience no difficulty in demonstrating that they satisfy the requirements of the HRC. I have no statistical evidence of a significant increase in the numbers disallowed on the grounds of not being habitually resident for claims made by returning Irish emigrants. My Department will review cases brought to its attention.
Under social welfare legislation, decisions on all aspects of claims are made by statutorily appointed deciding officers. Each case received for a determination on the HRC is dealt with in its own right and a decision is based on application of the legislation and guidelines to the individual circumstances of each case. Since the introduction of the condition, 144 staff at local offices have been trained on habitual residence decisions and training has been provided to approximately 1,000 former community welfare staff who are now on the staff of my Department.
In June this year, new national and international HRC guidelines were produced, taking into account recent developments in case law. The Department also published a supplement which gives example scenarios of how the condition is applied. These guidelines have been published on the Department's website and circulated to all relevant staff within the Department. The updated documents make the guidelines clearer and more user friendly for staff and customers alike. An applicant who disagrees with the decision on a case has the right to request a review of that decision and-or appeal to the social welfare appeals office.
I thank the Minister for her reply. In my experience of dealing with this issue, the only way claimants end up getting their payments is if they quote the EU guidelines. It is only when that happens that the deciding officer will say, "You are actually right", but if the claimants do not know that before meeting the officer, they will not get what they are entitled to. Can these guidelines be made more solid, for example, in legislation?
I dealt with the case of an elderly man who no longer felt safe in Manchester, where he was living. It is debatable whether he was right or wrong but he had not lived in Ireland for 30 years. He had lived here for 35 years before he emigrated. He returned and he was told he was not entitled to anything and he was not Irish anymore. People seem to have to fight like dogs to secure their benefits rather than it being pointed out to them that they are entitled to them. They have to prove something before anything is done for them.
The Deputy's question relates to returning Irish emigrants. I refer to a number of developments that have taken place. The HRC distinguishes between people who return to the State for a temporary period and those who return with the intention of settling permanently or at least on a long-term basis. The Department's guidelines indicate the evidence that enables a deciding officer to distinguish that, for instance, the sale of a residence or termination of employment abroad, the shipping of property and personal effects back to Ireland, no immediate family remaining abroad and the expiry of a foreign residence permit, if one was required in the country in which the claimant resided.
The Department met representatives of Safe-Home and Crosscare in May 2010. The attention of officers in the Department was drawn to the arrangements made by Safe-Home for the repatriation of Irish emigrants. When I visited London for the St. Patrick's Day celebrations shortly after my appointment, I met the representatives of several organisations assisting Irish emigrants, some of whom were returning to Ireland. The issue is an information gap between the two sides but a claimant must show clearly that he or she is returning to Ireland. In the case referred to by the Deputy, the individual had lived for a long period in the UK and was returning to Ireland. Applicants have to show they do not intend to return to the UK. Deciding officers look for evidence that they no longer maintain a home or rent a property there and they have transferred their interest back to Ireland.
I did not table the question to address the elderly man's case. The person about whom I tabled it made clear that she was returning to Ireland to go to college having been away for three years. It was only when she pointed out the fact that EU guidelines were in place that she was told she was entitled to the payment. There is an anomaly in this regard and perhaps the Minister can discuss this with the Minister for Education and Skills. There seem to be different rules. If one is claiming welfare when one returns to Ireland, the HRC applies but if one wants to go to college on return to avail of the fees regime as opposed to being treated as someone from outside the EU, one must prove that one is ordinarily resident in the State. Why the difference?
The Deputy should refer that question to the Department of Education and Skills.
The Minister might do that for me.
I know people affected by that issue as well, particularly the children of Irish people who have worked abroad for years, for example, in Africa and whose children are Irish. When they return home, their children want to go to college here but the Department of Education and Skills has specific rules because it cannot discriminate in favour of people who are Irish.
Crosscare indicated the revised guidelines, which followed from the ongoing discussions between the Department and Safe-Home and Crosscare, were much improved and it welcomed their publication.
The other issue is that one of the reasons that appeals succeed is that by the time they are heard, it is clear that the applicants have settled in Ireland. When they first return, they may not have made their case as clearly as they should, whereas a few months later, it may be clear that they are staying.
4 Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Social Protection the measures she is considering in relation to the rent supplement scheme in the budget 2012; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [36439/11]
Between 2005 and 2010, rent supplement expenditure increased from €369 million to €516 million. The number of persons claiming the allowance increased from almost 60,200 in 2005 to more than 96,100 as at 18 November 2011, a 60% increase. The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot discuss measures under consideration for inclusion in budget 2012. However, in framing the budget proposals, my priority will be to continue to make progress on delivering on the commitments in the programme for Government and to deliver good value for money for the taxpayer.
My focus in regard to the rent supplement scheme will be to return the scheme to its original intentions of a short-term income support payment for people who suddenly lose their jobs or who are renting a house or flat with the local authorities taking over responsibility for meeting the accommodation needs of those in receipt of rent supplement on a long-term basis.
Two main initiatives are being pursued by the Department to transfer long-term rent supplement recipients into housing solutions supported by local authorities. One is the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, which was introduced in 2004, and gives local authorities specific responsibility for meeting the longer term housing needs of people receiving rent supplement for 18 months or more.
The second is the new housing policy framework statement announced by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and the former Minister of State with responsibility for housing and planning on 16 June 2011, which sets out the principles to underpin the development of housing policy into the medium term. A multi-agency steering group has been established by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to give effect to this initiative and this group is developing proposals and operational protocols for the transfer of responsibility from my Department to housing authorities of persons who have long-term housing requirements. The transfer of tenants from rent supplement to local authorities will help achieve a key Government commitment of removing barriers to employment and returning rent supplement to its original intention of a short-term income support payment.
I appreciate that the Minister will not tell me her intentions in this regard for the budget. Unfortunately, the response to the first question I asked let it slip that employers' sick pay is a kite that will not be taken down by backbenchers, or has not been taken down yet anyhow.
We spoke on this issue previously and I asked six weeks ago whether some consideration or initiation of co-operation might be instigated by the Minister with her counterpart in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in order that the stock of housing in NAMA may have a social dividend for the State. There are 100,000 people on this scheme, which, as the Minister rightly says, was never intended to be a long-term solution but has ended up being one. It is an issue that has to be addressed in the short term.
I appreciate and agree with the Minister's intention to move the whole area of rent supplement back to the local authorities, where it belongs, those authorities being the best guardians of housing. Will the Minister confirm some progress has been made in regard to NAMA stock with her counterpart in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government since we last put that proposal to her?
Discussions have been taking place, particularly involving the former Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, with NAMA in regard to utilising NAMA properties, where appropriate, for housing solutions and the social dividend to which the Deputy refers. Obviously, these are very difficult issues.
I have spoken with and met the local authority managers in this regard. There is a series of difficulties with rent supplement. It is probably one of the biggest barriers to taking up employment. People who get an offer of a job fear they will lose their rent supplement if they go to work, whereas if somebody is on the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, or is a direct local authority tenant, they are on differential rent and can predict, broadly, their rent charge if they take a job and, most importantly, they are not disbarred from taking a job.
The other issue is that in some cases local authorities cannot find tenants to accept some properties because people may prefer an option of renting in the private sector a newer property that may be available in the locality. In addition, local authority managers have told me they have a problem with some local authority tenants, whether those on RAS or traditional tenants, who build up arrears of rent. As the Deputy knows, the Department traditionally pays the rent supplement to the individual, who pays it to the landlord. The local authorities in some instances suggest a very difficult arrears problem has been established. As part of the changes in rent supplement, we need better IT developments to perhaps facilitate the household budgeting scheme operated by An Post being used to assist local authorities.
Is the Minister looking at the prospect of payments being made directly to landlords under that scheme?
In an ideal world, the payments ought to be made directly to the landlords, which is the idea of RAS. In that way, we can ensure the landlord is tax compliant and the local authority, where it is operating the allocation, will be in a position to vet the property and establish its standard. Most importantly, the tenant is free to take up work, subject to the differential rent scheme. However, the local authorities have 88 separate differential rent schemes and 88 separate computer systems for deducting rent, so there is an IT difficulty. There is an interdepartmental working group, set up by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, on which my officials are closely involved to try to develop a system that will enable the requirements of the local authorities to be met.
5 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the importance of the role played by the half-rate carer’s allowance; her views that were this to be cut many family carer's would have no choice but to relinquish their caring duties to the State resulting in a potential cost to the Exchequer four times the size of any social protection savings made. [36441/11]
There are almost 52,000 people in receipt of carer‘s allowance from my Department and approximately 22,000 of those are getting half-rate carer's allowance in addition to another social welfare payment, an increase of almost 40% since 2008. This year, we will spend more than €650 million on carers across several schemes.
I am very conscious of the needs of people on social welfare and appreciate that many depend solely on welfare payments. I will do my utmost to protect the most vulnerable people on welfare, including carer's, in the forthcoming budget. Carers play a particularly important role in society which the Government acknowledges through a range of supports, including carer's allowance, half-rate carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the respite care grant. The means test for carer's allowance is one of the most generous means tests in the social welfare system, most notably with regard to spouse's earnings. Since April 2008, the income disregard has been €332.50 per week for a single person and €665 per week for a couple. A couple with two children can earn up to €35,400 and qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance, as well as the associated free travel and household benefits.
The Government's policy is to support the preference of people to live in dignity and independence in their own homes and communities. Where people are being cared for at home, the care they receive is usually a balance of support from family and professional help. My Department provides income supports for family carers while the Department of Health and the Health Service Executive provide professional support and services.
Obviously, sustainable public finances are a prerequisite for maintaining an adequate system of social protection, as well as for achieving future economic stability and growth. For these reasons, the State must pursue a determined deficit reduction strategy. Accordingly, there will be an ongoing requirement to curtail expenditure and prioritise resources in my Department in 2012 and in later years. Final decisions have not been made in regard to welfare expenditure for next year, including carer's allowance. These decisions will be made after full consideration by the Government and will be announced on budget day.
Does the Minister agree, and from her answer it appears she does, that half-rate carer's allowance exists for a good reason, namely, it plays an important role in tackling poverty among households affected by disability in particular? Does she agree the payment of €102 per week for full-time care is not a bonus, far from it? Is she aware the payment is generally subsumed into the household weekly budget to cover the many additional costs to which disability gives rise, for example, when caring for a person with cancer or with limited mobility, there is an extra cost to heating a home to ward off the cold, or if someone is caring for an incontinent person, there are extra costs for linen and so on, as is the case for a person with special dietary requirements?
The Minister told us there are some 21,000 families on the half-rate carer's allowance. Is she aware that if she was to cut that allowance, this would result in weekly income cuts ranging from 15% to 50% for those families, and that among those, the largest grouping affected would be pensioners?
As the Deputy is probably aware, the comprehensive review of expenditure being undertaken by the Government follows the format used in a number of other countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Holland. These were developed at times when those countries had financial difficulties. In that context, it is necessary to look at every item of expenditure in regard to the budget. I very much appreciate the contribution carers make. Carers who care on a full-time basis for people carry out a service of enormous benefit to the people they love and of enormous benefit to our society. In Ireland we have had an approach that is slightly different in this respect from that in other countries in that in many areas of social welfare, particularly during the Celtic tiger years, there was an emphasis on increasing direct payments whereas many other countries tended to put equal emphasis on payments of income supports and the provision of services. The Deputy should bear in mind that the spend this year is more than €650 million while ten years ago it was €100 million.
I will take a brief supplementary from Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
Therefore, the State has expressed its commitment to carers in the amount of finance committed.
Does the Minister agree that if there was a substantial change in the half-rate carer's allowance it would give many family carers no option but to relinquish their role and place their loved ones in the care of the State? Does she also agree it would be terrible if that were to happen and that it would also involve a huge cost for the State? Does she agree that since the beginning of 2009 the carer's allowance and disability allowance have been cut by more than 9% and in September the Minister cut a range of fuel allowances at rates of between 16% and 25% while the cost of fuel increased by up to 25% in that period?
Unfortunately, I cannot divulge to the Deputy any details of the budget announcements which may be made by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, on budget day. All I can say is that, as Minister, I very much value and appreciate the role and work carers do in Irish society. The model of caring we would all wish to see is one where people are enabled, encouraged, facilitated and supported to stay in their own home for as long as possible. That is the modern model of caring for people who have an illness. It is important that we should support the development and continuance of that model.
