The committee was discussing amendment No. 16 requesting that the carer's respite grant be increased to £1,000 and that carers in receipt of social welfare payments not be excluded from qualifying for a carer's allowance in certain circumstances. Carers bear so much of the burden of caring, in many cases for elderly relatives, and they have to be looked after as well but unfortunately they are often forgotten. I ask the Minister for his views on this amendment before we proceed.
Social Welfare Bill, 2001: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.
SECTION 14.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 16:
In page 16, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following new subsection:
"(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 considering the implications of:
(a)increasing the respite care grant to £1,000 to all carers including those who are excluded by virtue of a means test, and
(b)removing the disqualification, whereby carers in receipt of social wellfare payments are excluded from qualifying for a carer's allowance in special circumstances.”.
–(Deputy Keogh).
This is a very important amendment on a very important subject and this Government is committed to carers.
Since this Government came into office the carer's allowance, for which I am responsible, has been increased by 200% from £36 million to £108 million and it will go up even further next year. The number of carer's allowance recipients has gone up by 81% and, as a result of the budget, will increase again. Not only that, I was the Minister to introduce the carer's respite grant of £200 and over the last two budgets we have increased it to £400, the view being that it would be progressively amplified. To agree to increase it to £1,000 would cost £11 million for existing carers and £35 million for the estimated 33,000 carers not in receipt of carer's allowance.
The issue of the two payments has been examined in the review of the carer's allowance published in 1998 and the view was that the current position should continue and only one should be made. This is the case generally throughout the social welfare code, the only exception being a concession given to widows to allow them to go back to the workplace, whereby they may claim half a disability benefit. My record as Minister in this area has been second to none.
Altogether a modest claim.
The facts are there and I can read them out.
The Minister should wait for people to say that sort of thing to him.
Going back to 1991 when my party was in Government we gave an 11.11% increase whereas in 1994 when certain other parties came into office a 3% increase was given. In 1992 a 6% increase was granted, the 1993 figure was 11.75%, but in 1994 it was 3% and in 1995 it was 2.5%.
Yes, but things were bad that year.
In 1996 it was a modest 8% and in 1997 the last budget of the last Government saw an increase of 4.4%. In 1998 it was 4.3% to 7.1% and in 1999 it was 4.1% to 7.9% plus a huge number of changes.
It is only the relationship to GDP that means anything.
I would have to go into two pages to show all the amendments but in any event I hear what Senators say.
We have increased the disregard fairly significantly. In fact, the Select Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs asked me, in the run up to the budget, to increase the disregards from £75 to £150 and from £150 to £250, and I did that. I would like to think that in the next budget we will look at the disregard again in order to bring more people into the carer's allowance scheme.
I would have thought the Minister could accept this amendment because all he is being asked to do is to prepare a report so that we could see the implications of increasing the respite care grant. In fact, he is being asked to have others prepare a report; he does not have to do it himself.
I told the Senator that the financial implications of increasing it for the existing people are £11 million and if the figure was expanded to 50,000, which represents a guestimate, it would be £35 million.
From what the Minister has said the implications do not sound so huge. Respite care can mean all the difference in terms of being able to keep someone at home. I am always sympathetic to carers because in child care one sees the child get older and things improve, whereas frequently those who care for the handicapped and the elderly see a worsening year by year. The only relief they can get is respite care. In these days of so much money could not the Department come up with the sum involved?
Mr. Ryan
Tá brón orm go rabhas beagánín déanach agus tá súil agam nár chuir sé isteach ró mhór ar an Aire.
This is a touchstone issue. It is £35 million, if we accept the Minister's figure, and he has more resources at his disposal. This country is populated by heroes and the most visible manifestation of that is the huge number of people who care heroically for children who are handicapped, for parents who are old and in need of long-term care or for partners. It is not the romantic kind of heroism; it is the practical kind. This allowance is a gesture by society – and that is all it is – to that heroism.
We spend perhaps a few hundred million pounds to defend ourselves from foot and mouth disease, and rightly so. We can spend huge amounts on this and that so why is it that contributing to the real heroes of our society is always characterised by a penny pinching attitude? So what if it will cost £35 million? That is 1.5% of the budget surplus which is being used to pay off the national debt. That is the issue. Is doing this more important than paying off a bit of the national debt? I have no objection to paying off some of the debt – it is probably a reasonable idea – but the real question is whether it is more important economically and socially to spend £35 million to improve the lives of these heroes.
These are modest amendments. I am constantly embarrassed by the things we still do to people. One meets an elderly man pushing his elderly spouse in a wheelchair and on asking why they do not get a motorised wheelchair one is told that it would cost £2,000, that they are both on social welfare and that the health board has said that if they can produce £1,000 it will provide the other £1,000. That is not relevant to this. We are in a society which has limitless funds for so many things but which puts obstacles in the way of what is, relatively speaking, a small expenditure of £35 million. That is a huge sum of money to most people. It is the margin of error of the Estimates of most Departments in this State. It is money that could be directed at people whom we all acknowledge are among the real heroes in Irish society, the people who put practical care into our society – I have written about them often.
What we are saying here is that this small increase for them is not huge in terms of cash, but in terms of the limited resources they have it would transform their lives. I do not understand why the Minister refers to review groups and so on. The review groups do not have to do what carers have to do. There is a huge need in issues like this to insert some reality into them because, in the general area of social policy, whether on homelessness, social care or income maintenance, the realities are different from the assessments of academics and professionals. This is an issue on which I genuinely believe the Minister is mistaken. The amount of money is not enormous, but the difference it would make to lives of ordinary people is huge.
We are talking about a relatively small amount of money in budget terms, but it would mean much to people who are involved as carers. The Minister reminded us that it was he who introduced the carer's allowance. However, this is something many people have been looking for, and we are looking at this in the context of a society that is much better off, a society that is talking about building a national stadium for £1 billion. What are our priorities here? I have no objection to a world class stadium for Dublin, but I object to penny-pinching in regard to issues like this when we could make a real difference to the lives of people who are on the margins, people who basically do not count. By enabling people to continue to care for invalids, elderly relatives and so on, we would save the State money because if people who are cared for within the family home had to be cared for in a nursing home, the cost to the State would be enormous. Recognising the job carers do and enabling them to continue to do it is what we are talking about here. The benefits of doing that are incalculable, and it can be done for a relatively small amount of money. That is the context within which we should look at these issues.
I support what the previous speakers have said in relation to this modest concession in terms of means testing for carers. Senator Keogh has just made the point that care provided in the home and the provision of a carer's allowance paid to a carer would cost the State about one quarter of what it would cost to care for a person in a State-run senior citizens' home or hospital. Currently there is a scandal about nursing home subventions and the State will now apparently have to compensate hundreds of thousands of people who were asked for money when the law provided that a much greater level of nursing home subvention should have been provided for in these cases. The Minister should, in every way possible, encourage the care of people in their own homes and within their own families as far as possible. We still have a wonderful caring culture. People leave work and give up a good income that could be three times the value of a carer's allowance to look after their elderly parents. However, some monetary compensation is necessary because they cannot live on air alone. That willingness to care is a precious part of our culture and it should be encouraged. However, by being mean-minded about small things that are really at the edge of this scheme we are discouraging it, with the result that many people feel very frustrated.
The Minister should think anew on this. I am aware that his budget for the current year is set out, but this is something he should consider more seriously.
We all appreciate what carers do. I was probably the most vehement a couple of years ago in seeking to have the respite care grant increased. We all empathise with carers. No one party has a monopoly on caring. The main priority of the Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs was to seek an increase in the income disregard this year because of the number of people who really need it but are not benefiting. I appeal to the Minister, perhaps by way of compromise, to agree to look at the possibility of increasing the respite care grant again this year. I appreciate that this year's budget and priorities have been laid out and that this Bill contains improvements for carers. However, nobody would say we have accomplished everything for carers. We all appreciate the job they do, seven days a week, 365 days a year. They deserve whatever we can do to make life a little easier for them. At the Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs we prioritised the issue of increasing the income disregard for this year. Perhaps it is something we can look at again in the coming year.
In answer to Senator Ryan, money is not limitless. There is always a limit on money. No matter how big the budget is – there was twice as much available to me this year as last year – it is still a little like the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Priorities must be decided. Are Senators saying that we should have spent the money we put into carer's allowance this year on the respite grant? Does that mean we should have taken it away from the increase in the disregard in relation to carer's allowance or from child benefit, or from old age pensioners? It is a matter of balancing all the priorities.
In the miracle of the loaves and fishes, everybody got enough.
There is always a limit on the amount of money. Since I came to office the number of recipients has increased from 9,000 to more than 17,000 and will further increase to 22,500 as a result of the budget changes. In addition, every one of them is a recipient of all the free schemes, which was not the case prior to this.
It is about time.
The Government introduced the respite care grant, which has been increased progressively by £100 every year. As I indicated in the other House and earlier today, doing away with the means test is not the best way to target resources at those most in need. It would mean that a millionaire Senator who is a carer would be able to get the same amount of money as a poor Senator who might be pulling the devil by the tail.
I take it that would also apply to a Minister.
Doing away with the disregard would allow somebody who is well off to get the same amount of money as somebody who is not well off. This is one of the reasons I introduced the innovative new carer's benefit scheme way ahead of its target date. This non-means tested scheme which is based on stamps record will, over time, become a significant scheme.
Mr. Ryan
Is it okay for a millionaire then?
I do not accept that the Government has penny-pinched This is only one aspect of caring. I fully accept Senator Henry's point that the Department of Health and Children has the primary responsibility in relation to caring for people and carers and ensuring there are respite beds in hospitals. A 200% increase in the resources allocated to this area over four years is not penny-pinching.
Some speakers found fault with the carers' review which covered all schemes. I am obliged, as set down by the previous Government, to carry out expenditure reviews of all sectors. My Department has been the best performer in terms of expenditure reviews and we have been able to use them – I hope the Department of Finance is not listening to this – to change the schemes for the benefit of people. All the recommendations, bar two, of the carers' review – they were positive recommendations – were implemented in the first budget. I have with me the long list of changes made. One of the changes which escaped many people is that the carers of children in receipt of a domiciliary care allowance are now eligible to apply for a carer's allowance. A huge number of people in receipt of domiciliary allowance with children between the ages of two and 16 years now qualify for the carer's allowance. This was a huge benefit for people with children with a disability.
In addition, my colleague, the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, did away with the anomaly which no one could understand and which had existed for years whereby people with children under two years could not qualify for a domiciliary care allowance. Following this change parents with children up to 16 years on domiciliary care allowance were able to get a carer's allowance. I also introduced all the free schemes for people in receipt of a carer's allowance. We relaxed the residency rule under which one had to be literally living on top of the person for whom one was caring. Within six months we relaxed the rules further after the matter was raised by many Deputies and Senators.
I do not accept for one minute that there has been penny-pinching. I fully accept that more needs to be done not only by my Department, but also by the Department of Health and Children. Rather than abolishing the means test, the best way of dealing with the issue is to raise the disregards. We raised the disregards significantly this year so that a couple on an income of £15,100 can qualify for the maximum carer's allowance and all the free schemes, while a couple on an income of £25,000 can qualify for the minimum carer's allowance and all the free schemes. By raising the disregards progressively – I have given a commitment on this – we will get to a situation in the not too distant future where a family on the average industrial wage will qualify for the maximum carer's allowance and all the free schemes plus, I hope, an enhanced respite care grant.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 14 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 16, before section 15, to insert the following new section:
"15.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 increasing the respite care grant for recipients of carer's allowance and benefit to £1,000.".
Question, "That the new section be there inserted", put and declared lost.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 16, before section 15, to insert the following new section:
"15.–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.".
I want to make clear the purpose of the amendment. It is not about demanding an immediate increase in the carer's allowance or the immediate abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance. Rather it asks the Minister to prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of abolishing the means test. Such a report would contain much of what the Minister said, however contradictory it might be. He told us that he disapproved of abolishing the means test because it would mean a millionaire could be paid the carer's allowance, while in the next breath he told us he was introducing a carer's benefit which would not be means tested and which, presumably, the self same millionaire could avail of.
It is based on the stamps record like maternity benefit or any other scheme.
Mr. Ryan
In other words, it is essentially a case of deserving and undeserving carers.
No.
They have given up work.
That is the whole idea of social insurance; it is social solidarity.
Mr. Ryan
Social insurance contains many ideas and has a long history going back to Bismarck. The Minister said the basic reason he was opposed to a non-means tested carer's allowance is that it would allow millionaires to avail of it. However, in the next breath he said he is introducing a carer's benefit which he admits millionaires can avail of provided they have made the appropriate contributions.
We are recognising the heroism of carers and I do not care whether we do it through benefit or non-means testing. The only difference is that the current generation of carers find the means test to be a profound affront to what they do. The idea that in a few years' time they will be able, provided they make the appropriate contributions, to avail of it without a means test is a further affront to them because they know it is simply a way of delaying the inevitable.
It also means that carers who are in a position to pay contributions will be treated differently from spouses – in most cases they are women – who will not be entitled to a carer's allowance because they never went out to work. Even though they do the same job of caring the Mini ster is saying that in one case they will not qualify for a carer's allowance because of their income, while the income will not matter in another case because they have the appropriate number of contributions. This is a contradictory argument.
If the Minister believes that the scheme should be based on means, the whole idea of carer's benefit is a nonsense. However, if the carer's benefit is a way of funding a scheme to provide non-means tested carer's allowances, it would be better to immediately abolish the means test and require people at work to pay the carer's allowance through their social insurance contributions. Otherwise he is contradicting himself. He does not often do this but he has done so in this case.
I seek a little latitude as I wish to digress slightly to another area of concern in relation to the carer's allowance. A new concept was introduced over a year ago that the cared for person must undergo a medical examination or be subject to the decision of the medical assessors of the Department before the carer's allowance is paid. It was generally accepted that the elderly person was suffering from some degree of infirmity and so long as there was bone fide a person to provide care, generally a member of the family, the carer's allowance was paid. I have come across a number of cases through my constituency work of people being frustrated having waited for months. In 2000 there was a backlog in the medical assessors' office of the Department in relation to the carer's allowance that was nothing short of a scandal. People waited for months, some died while on the waiting list for the medical assessors to give their decision as to whether they had a degree of illness or infirmity that qualified them to be regarded as a cared for person. Throughout the country there are elderly people—
I would point out that the amendment is about abolishing the means test while the Senator speaks about the waiting list.
You were just occupying the Chair when I made a plea to the Cathaoirleach for a little latitude.
Acting Chairman
I was not aware of that.
I hoped this plea for latitude would fall on the receptive ears of your good self as a good friend and colleague. It is a serious point and it is good that it be ventilated. If the Minister listens to what I have to say and is influenced and speaks to that section of his Department about delays and their interpretation of what is illness and infirmity, we would be doing a good service for carers and the cared for people. Throughout the countryside there are elderly people who appear to be in good health but they have a degree of infirmity which means it is unsafe for them to live alone and they need the assistance of a carer to guarantee their general welfare and safety. Elderly people who are not infirm, in the sense of needing a wheelchair or being bedridden, are at risk in terms of their safety and need somebody to live with them and to care for them. That was the principle when the scheme was introduced and medical certificates were not demanded. People were eligible for the scheme on age grounds. I ask the Minister to look at that issue because there is a problem and no doubt there are still delays in decision making by the medical assessors of his Department.
Eligibility criteria were changed some time ago at the behest of some of the lobby groups who were unhappy that assessments were made at desks. An applicant would submit an application form with a doctor's certificate and the assessment was made without any examination. The reason was to protect people who were refused at a desk. My understanding is that there are no grave difficulties in that respect. If the Senator can produce evidence of recent cases I will undertake to look at them. I hazard a guess that if there is any delay it is due to the huge increase in the number of applications as a result of the change in the disregard and the many changes which have taken place in recent years. Applications have increased by 81% to date and as a result of the changes in the disregard this year an extra 5,000 will be eligible for carer's allowance plus 3,000 existing carers will get an increased payment.
In reply to Senator Ryan, I am not contradicting myself. Perhaps Senator Ryan does not understand the difference between social insurance and social assistance.
Mr. Ryan
I do understand them.
There is no situation where any social assistance payment is other than means tested. That is the rationale behind social assistance. Social insurance is on the basis of contributions paid right across the system, irrespective of means, where people are entitled to a payment as of right. The carer's benefit was requested by all the carers' associations and lobby groups and was a recommendation in the carers' review in 1998. If my memory serves me correctly, it was a commitment in Partnership 2000 or was about to be a commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. I recall Peter Cassells calling for this carer's benefit only to be told the decision was already announced to implement it even before it was included in the particular agreement.
Mr. Ryan
I am aware of the difference between social insurance and social assistance. I am also aware that a carer is a different category of person from any of the recipients of either social insurance or social assistance because they are not getting support either through insurance or assistance for themselves. They are getting support to enable them care for somebody else. Therefore, to produce precedents based on what social assistance is for – which is to help an individual or an individual family to survive – or social insurance is to ignore the question. The Minister quotes all the lobby groups. Does he believe the lobby groups on behalf of carers are happy with what he has done? They told me and virtually every Member of the Oireachtas they were not happy.
They would not be doing their job if they told the Senator they were happy.
Mr. Ryan
The problem with a means test, which the Minister has demonstrated, is that a couple on £25,000 can be eligible for some of the carer's allowance plus the free schemes. For a couple with a family and a mortgage £25,000 is a low income on which to have to find some way of making provision for a dependant. It is conceivable to argue that on my own income level one could afford to do this without the assistance of the State. The cost of this is so high that it would not be worth while having a means test because what one would save would be minuscule. This is the continuing argument about means tests generally but in this case it is a particularly compelling argument. That is why I ask the Minister to get an independent person to look at this. The amendment simply asks for a report. I do not know why we cannot have reports to contribute to the debate, to advance the issues the Minister says are compelling – which I do not believe. I am disappointed at the Minister's response.
I suggest the Senator read the carers' review of October 1998. In relation to the lobby groups, a couple of weeks ago a conference was held in Newry of carers on the island of Ireland where they had speakers from Ireland, the UK and elsewhere. The unanimous view was that carers in the Republic were cared for in relation to supports from the Department of Health and Children and my Department far more than those in the UK and in Northern Ireland. Similarly, one of the lobby groups was in Wales recently and freely admitted and the people in Wales were of the view that the supports here were far better than in Wales.
Mr. Ryan
I await the Minister's telling me that he has people from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Austria or the Netherlands who say the carers' system in Ireland is better than theirs.
What about Britain or France, the Senator's next door neighbours?
Mr. Ryan
Let us for once abandon our inferiority complex which requires us to compare our selves to the neighbouring island which is, perhaps, the least enlightened country in Europe in terms of how it deals with many social problems. We moved on from that in 1922. There are better countries with which to compare ourselves. Let us set ourselves higher—
That country has been ruled for some time by a Labour Government.
Senator Ryan has only joined the Labour Party.
Mr. Ryan
I am not sure what contribution the Leader is making to our discourse but he is obviously enjoying himself. If the Minister wishes to make comparisons he should make compari sons with the countries to whose standards he said we should aspire. This does not include the neighbouring island which was benighted by 16 years of perhaps the most right wing government any European country has had in the past 60 years and from which it is still trying to recover.
Acting Chairman
We should stick to the amendment.
Mr. Ryan
I am sorry, Acting Chairman, but if the Minister insists on raising these matters for his or my entertainment – I do not know – he is inviting the response he has received.
Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."
Tá
|
Burke, Paddy.Connor, John.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary.Keogh, Helen. |
McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.O'Toole, Joe.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cregan, John.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim. |
Glynn, Camillus.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ryan and Burke; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons.
Question declared lost.
Section 15 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 19, before section 16, to insert the following new section:
"16.–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 identifying key areas of disadvantage, both urban and rural, with proposals to give additional social insurance and social assistance supports to the population of those areas.".
It is worth exploring the issue of whether differentiated payments should be available to communities that are suffering from disadvantage. It is already present in terms of the island allowance, but there is an argument that families that have to live in areas of multiple disadvantage need a considerably greater income if they are to be assisted to escape from it. I am moving the amendment in the hope of receiving enlightenment from the Minister who is in an enlightening mood tonight. We now know that he is an anarchist.
Is the Senator receptive?
I happen to live in a rural part of the country that was once described as severely handicapped but is now called severely disadvantaged. That is an EU definition under the Common Agricultural Policy. There is no doubt that there are enclaves of poverty in rural areas and while I am not an expert in urban poverty, I recognise fully that it exists. To its credit, CORI has drawn attention to the levels of rural poverty. There are such enclaves where average income is barely 40% of the national average, and less than that in many cases. The income in such enclaves probably represents less than 30% of the average EU income.
In 1989, the first national plan that was prepared for our application for EU Structural and Regional Funds was the best one in that it dealt in some detail with income structures in the various regions. The low income levels in many communities in the west and northwest regions were extraordinary but, relatively speaking, their position has not improved greatly. The proposed idea, that an in-depth look should be taken at these disadvantaged areas, is a good one. Areas of greater structural disadvantaged will thus be discovered. One will find people living on incomes who are not even getting social assistance, either because of pride or because they have a small farm and are deemed to have means that, on the face of it, would not appear to qualify them for social assistance. Very often these people will not stand up for their legal entitlements because of pride. Little is known about this matter which has not been greatly investigated or studied.
I congratulate Senator Ryan for tabling this amendment. In a sense, it is related to amendments Nos. 32 and 33 in my name, relating to income support for small farmers who are, typically, very severely disadvantaged people in rural settings.
There are many supports in my Department for disadvantaged areas. The community development programme touches about 100 geographic areas and gives the necessary supports in that respect for community development. In the national anti-poverty strategy, there are targets in relation to urban and rural poverty, all of which have been examined. In the recent PPF, there was a Government commitment, which CORI strongly supported, to bring forward the RAPID programme. We did that and it has identified 25 distinct geographic areas. It so happens that those are all urban areas, which emerged from the particular methodology which had been agreed with the social partners. The Government has agreed that a further programme would be brought forward, additional to the PPF commitment, to identify rural areas and smaller towns. In those areas, there will be a much greater concentration of effort on bringing forward the national development plan in all its aspects, in conjunction with the community development boards. The amendment which Senators are proposing is not necessary because there is a huge effort being made to target those areas which are most disadvantaged.
Mr. Ryan
I wish to put a case on record which I know to be true. It concerns a woman whom I regard as an outstanding coper. She juggled her limited income very well, but invariably there was a disaster every two or three months, when some unexpected item of expense caused an income deficit. She then started a procession from one agency to another, statutory and voluntary. She always said that her best source of help was the GP who could prescribe more tranquillisers so that she could cope with the stress of her income problems. One of the defining moments in her life was when she discovered the cost of the tranquillisers and that if the State had paid her a similar amount, she would not have needed the tranquillisers in the first place.
Providing services is, of course, most important, but giving people incomes in their own hands is a major part of alleviating poverty. All my children attended primary schools classified as disadvantaged because of their location. About 40% of children from well-off families got the benefit of the extra expenditure on schools that were classified as disadvantaged. Frankly, those of us on the board of management did not tell the parents of that classification, as some of them would probably have taken their children out of the school if they knew. We just said that we had got more money. However, there is a case for identifying people who live in difficult areas and giving more money to the copers among them, many of whom are women, so that they can deal with their own issues in their own way. That is better than providing services, such as that of the GP who prescribed endless amounts of medication, at a cost which would have solved the problem in the first place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 20, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3)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 setting out the number of persons who will lose living alone allowance as a result of gaining from the rent-a-room scheme contained in the Finance Act, 2001.".
Allowing the living alone allowance to be paid, while at the same time disregarding rental income for means test purposes, would not really be appropriate in the circumstances. I ask the Senator to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Section 18 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 21, before section 19, to insert the following new section:
"19.–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 feasibility of introducing a free schools meals scheme.".
The restrictive nature of the school meals system is well known and is a matter of great concern to many families, having regard to the length of the school day for children and the issue of child poverty, to which we referred earlier. Teachers are concerned at the inability of some children to participate in class due to a lack of nourishment. The amendment simply asks to have the feasibility of extending the parameters of the scheme examined. Many children get no more than a sandwich and a glass of milk and they are unable to learn because they are hungry and lack energy. The more disadvantaged children in our society are particularly vulnerable. They are the ones who may go on to have their own problems and to create problems for others. The amendment seeks to explore ways to ensure that as many as possible of our children are adequately nourished at school in body as well as in mind and spirit.
I expect the Minister has already worked out whether it is feasible to have a free meals scheme for school children. We should look at this area again. The breakfast clubs which operate in some disadvantaged schools have been a great success.
In the earlier debate on food safety, I referred to the national nutrition survey of adults between the ages of 18 and 65 years. In the case of school children, we might well find that there are more children than from disadvantaged areas who have not got an adequate diet. We should try to address that problem.
This issue has been actively considered in my Department. The school meals scheme run by some local authorities in urban areas is an old scheme dating from 1914. The expenditure is in the region of £700,000 per year. It has outlived its usefulness, in my view. Accordingly, I asked the Department, in conjunction with all the user groups, to look at possible changes. This examination is still ongoing but from the indications so far, I believe we should proceed along the lines of the breakfast clubs run by local communities in conjunction with the school authorities and teachers. I have visited one on the north side of Dublin and an excellent one in Drogheda which got substantial funding from the Peace and Reconciliation Fund to put in the infrastructure and my Department allocates money towards the running costs. I would like to believe that these clubs will be the model for the future.
As a result of initial indications last year, I invested a sum of £100,000 – I accept this is a small amount of money – to assist the breakfast clubs that had begun operating without any assistance from the Department. That amount has been increased to £300,000 this year and I would like to believe that in the lead up to the next budget we will perhaps, in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science, carry out a fairly major examination and bring forward proposals for the extension, if possible, of the community led scheme nationwide.
The Minister's comments are encouraging. Is it the intention to complete the review in order that a new scheme might be in place for the beginning of the next school year?
No. There are a number of school meal projects which are already up and running and which are being funded by my Department. Quite a number of other projects have applied to the Department because they know we have this money available. These projects are community led and must be encouraged from the bottom up. We hope to bring forward proposals before the end of the year so that these could get up and running and be provided with State funding, in due course. I cannot guarantee that this will occur before the beginning of the school year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 21, before section 19, to insert the following new section:
"19.–The Minister shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a review of the social welfare provisions available to those who are seeking asylum and the need to increase indirect provision for this group of people to £20 per week for adults and £10 per week for children.".
This amendment refers to an issue of much wider significance in our society. The difficulty is that many of those to whom the amendment refers are unable to seek employment.
Mr. Ryan
They are not allowed to seek it.
Yes, they are prevented from doing so. That is a great pity and this anomaly should be addressed as a matter of urgency.
There are asylum seekers and refugees in my constituency who would much prefer to be working. These people do not want to be a burden on the State, that was not their objective in coming here. They have come to Ireland in search of asylum and are seeking to set up home here because they were oppressed in their country of origin. Their objective is not to live off the State, but to contribute to society and help ease the labour shortage by availing of the employment opportunities on offer. It is mean spirited to give these people, who are prevented from obtaining gainful employment and who are hanging around looking for things to do, an amount of pocket money which does not allow them to buy very much. The objective of the amendment is to encourage the Government to take more immediate action in respect of this matter. In my opinion refugees and economic migrants are completely different. Regardless of this, however, their cases should be dealt with quickly.
Everyone is aware of the needs of school children, but the amount of money given to the asylum seekers and refugees whose children are attending school here does not allow them to pay for school trips or other activities in which those children want to be involved. The children to whom I refer are, to a certain extent, discriminated against because, unfortunately, racism is a fact of life in our society. They want to be seen as part of that society and we should take steps to remove anything which separates them from their peers. The amendment is a modest proposal designed to make their lives somewhat easier.
Mr. Ryan
Regardless of what I think about his views on various matters, the Minister is a pragmatist. I cannot see the pragmatic logic behind informing 5,000 or 6,000 people who happen to be living here for one or two years that we will accommodate them but that they will be compulsorily idle and that they will be paid a maximum disposable income of £15 per week. That amount would only buy one a pint and a newspaper. These people are obliged to do nothing all day, which is a recipe for prejudice.
I appeal to the Minister to go beyond the terms of the amendment and to approach the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and inform him that far from telling people who come here to seek asylum that they cannot work, we should stipulate to them on their arrival that they can remain in this country while their application is being processed on condition that they work.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform often refers to the "pull factors". However, I do not believe there is a scrap of evidence that allowing asylum seekers – who, in the main, are probably economic migrants – to work would make our existing problems worse. In my opinion allowing them to work would alleviate many of our difficulties because they would quickly be in a position to find accommodation of their choosing and would cease to be counted among the ranks of those who live in fixed bed and breakfast accommodation. I suggest that, apart from accepting this amendment, the Mini ster should discuss with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the issue of allowing these people to work.
I agree with Senator Ryan on this matter. I accept that this is not the Minister's area, but there is a shortage of nurses in Ireland at present despite the fact that there are nurses from, for example, Nigeria living here. These people cannot obtain work in our hospitals because of delays in processing their cases.
I accept some of the arguments put forward by Members. However, this is not an easy issue for any Government to deal with. The amounts paid to asylum seekers and refugees – £15 and £7.50 – which were set last April are currently under review. They are being examined in the context of the level of payment and the administrative arrangements for their delivery. At present, these payments are delivered by my Department. The fact that asylum seekers and refugees are obtaining, as of right, £15 and £7.50 does not prevent them from obtaining any other reasonable expenses under the exceptional needs payments scheme, which is run by the community welfare officers. I know from experience that many people are receiving exceptional needs payments through the community welfare system.
There are quite a number of asylum seekers in receipt of social welfare payments such as unemployment assistance, one parent family payments, etc, and some of them, following the Government's decision last July, are allowed to work. In addition, asylum seekers, many of whom have children, are entitled to receive child benefit, as of right and based on their children's residency here, and they will benefit from the substantial increases in the rates of payment which will take effect in June of this year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
We now come to amendment No. 25. Amendment No. 28 is related. We will take amendments Nos. 25 and 28 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 21, before section 19, to insert the following new section:
"19–The Minister shall, within three months after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a feasibility study into doubling the fuel allowance scheme during the winter months.".
With the weather we have experienced over the past few months, many people are saying this is the worst winter we have had in a long time. Knowing the way old people suffer from the cold, it is terrible that they have to eke out their fuel allowance. That is harking back to the days before we all had central heating. Many old people do not have central heating. They rely on coal or whatever method of heat that is available to them and we should be more generous in the allowances we give them. Food, heat and shelter are important basic requirements which we all take for granted and we should be more generous with this allowance.
I second the amendment. The Minister made great play earlier about the increases in the weekly allowances to pensioners, etc, but the cat was let out of the bag when he said that when he was considering fringe benefits such as fuel allowance and so on, it was felt that the weekly allowance should be increased rather than fringe benefits such as the fuel allowance. In other words, old age pensioners were supposed to provide their fuel out of that additional £10 per week. That is not altogether a cost of living increase.
It is a scandal that since the free fuel scheme was taken over by the Department some time in the mid-1980s – prior to that I understand it was operated by the health boards – it was fixed at £5 per week but it has not been increased since that time. In that 12 or 15 years, however, the price of fuel has effectively doubled. It is derisory and insulting to give somebody £5 per week to buy one bag of timber, turf or coal and, while welcome, the Minister's concession this year in increasing the period from 26 to 29 weeks is paltry.
That is one of the failures in the budget in terms of the outreach to elderly people. I knew two or three elderly people in my area who died from hypothermia. One person whom I knew, who was living alone, died this winter from hypothermia. That is little wonder if those people were depending on the fuel allowance to keep their houses warm. As Senator Keogh said, this is one of the coldest winters we have had at this latitude for many years. Due to global warming we had a series of relatively mild, wet winters but this year was the exception. There were many hard frosts and record low temperatures, especially after Christmas and, for the time of the year, in recent days.
The fuel allowance should be at least £20 per week to keep apace with the national fuel scheme which was introduced in the early 1980s or the late 1970s. That scheme was operated at the time by the health boards. To have the derisory sum of £5 per week in place for so long is inexcusable and it would not cost much to increase it to £10 per week.
Mr. Ryan
I want to broaden the debate slightly and in this case I am talking from experience because my mother would be in the category to which I want to refer. I hope she will never be short of the money to provide fuel because one assumes her children will look after her, but I want to talk about the principle. There is a cate gory of people who are not in receipt of any social welfare payment, for example, public service pensioners, and an allowance such as the fuel allowance is not available to them. We are talking about a diminishing number of people and it is worth thinking about this matter.
I want to make a second point in relation to those people and older people generally. I do not know who came to the conclusion that it was better to increase the payment generally because my experience of older people is that they worry about money all the time. It does not matter how much money they have; they still worry about money. Even the Minister's hypothetical millionaire's widow will worry about money. If we say we will provide them with £10, £15 or £20 worth of fuel per week, which will not come out of the budget they have to manage but will be provided to them as of right, they will know that they will have whatever form of fuel they choose in their back yard all the time. That would be one less issue for older people to manage and it would make life easier for them.
Somebody obviously came to a different conclusion when they recommended to the Minister that the best way to proceed was to increase payments generally. I am sceptical about that. We should be telling old people that they do not have to worry about heating because there is a large enough electricity allowance available and enough fuel will be provided to them as of right every week during the year so that they will always have loads of turf, coal or whatever fuel they want. From what I know of old people, that is an easier system and makes life less difficult for them rather than the alternative of giving them a larger income and telling them to manage it. That is putting an extra worry on the plate of older people.
To answer Deputy Connor's question, to double the allowance from £5 to £10 would cost £41.5 million. I examined this issue this year and last year. My Department has been very workmanlike during my tenure, and it is a compliment to my staff, but they carried out an expenditure review which examined this issue in 1998. One of the main conclusions reached by the evaluation group was that the current rates of payment should remain unchanged if improvements in primary payment rates fully compensated recipients for all price inflation, including fuel price inflation.
I fully accept that the price of fuel has increased in the past year. That was one of the reasons I looked at the issue very carefully this year but again it goes back to the amount of money available. It is the issue of the loaves and fishes. I could have put £25 million towards increasing the payment from £5 to £7.50 but any public representative, and even Deputy Ryan's mother, will say that the greater the amount of increase, the bigger the drop in their weekly income come April. This allowance is not just used to buy fuel, so a £10 reduction in their weekly income in April is felt by older people. Therefore, rather than put the money available into the fuel allowance I decided to increase the primary payments which means that people are getting a larger amount for 52 weeks of the year than the fuel allowance, which is now paid for 29 weeks; we increased the period by three weeks, which is welcomed. We also examined the possibility of concentrating some of the money we might have on the three winter months of the six months period but again we came down on the side of leaving it as it is because people's incomes are reduced by a certain amount over a certain period. It is an issue we will have to come back to. I think that ultimately the best thing – and it will not happen next year on its own – is to phase this out and phase the payment gradually from 29 weeks to 52 so that it is paid all year round.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 21, before section 19, to insert the following new section:
"19.–The Minister shall, within three months after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report justifying the difference in payments in respect of child dependant allowance, and setting out in such a report, the cost to the Exchequer in abandoning the exsiting payment differences in child dependant allowance.".
The freezing of CDAs, as with the previous Government, is based on research done by Combat Poverty and other agencies which suggests that all available money should go to child related payments. They recommend that CDAs be frozen because they are a disincentive to work as they are lost when people commence employment. Any money available should go to child benefit and we have done this. We continued that policy in recent years up to this year with the substantial increases in child benefit. There were 30 different rates of CDAs and are now only three which have been frozen for a number of years based on that policy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 and amendment No. 29 are related and will be taken together.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 21, before section 19, to insert the following new section:
"19.–The Minister shall, within three months after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the feasibility of increasing the back-to-school allowance.".
This is a simple amendment. We all know the difficulties encountered by families when children return to school. The beginning of the school year is particularly difficult and expensive. Often people think they have allowed for every item of expenditure and then find they had not thought of some purchases.
It is expensive nowadays because children are bombarded by messages resulting in their making demands of their parents which can be difficult to realise. People in large families do not have the wherewithal to meet all the demands whether directly related to school or not.
This is a way of alleviating the difficulty of those from large families or the disadvantaged. It is a simple amendment which the Minister should consider, if he has the figures. We want to increase the allowance and are not being prescriptive about the amount.
Mr. Ryan
This is again the area of marginal people in marginal work who are not well paid. There is still a large number of such people in society. On the issues like the back to school allowance, as well as supporting what Senator Keogh said, I suggest that the Minister talks to the Minister for Education and Science about how we fund education. It is not just people on social welfare who find things like the beginning of the school year difficult. There are many parents who struggle to meet all sorts of extras – the secondary schools who send the polite note looking £50 for this or £100 for that, the primary schools who say they are short and want everybody to bring in a pound or two a week.
I think in terms of a poverty strategy which says the best way to deal with poverty is to have people in jobs that earn a worthwhile income. Dealing with the crises that people have at Christmas or the beginning of the school term is part of that strategy. The Minister should look not just at the back to school allowance but at the way we fund parents putting children through education. For many people it is a huge burden despite the pretence of free education.
Last year I increased the clothing and footwear allowance substantially for the first time in many years. It was by £20 at each point, a 44.5% increase for children under 12 and a 34% increase for those over. I asked my Department to review the scheme generally taking into account rates of pay, eligibility and targeting. It is going on, Senator Ryan should note, in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science because I accept that there are other implications. The working group should report shortly. There are consultations with a number of people. Combat Poverty sponsored a seminar for us looking at this scheme or the schools meals – I think it was this scheme. The working group will report shortly and we will have some conclusions on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.
NEW SECTIONS.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 23, before section 21, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:
"21.–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 removing restrictions in relation to accessing the increased mobility allowance for persons with disabilities who have availed of tax relief for private transport.".
The Minister and I had a brief informal dialogue at the end of the Second Stage on the mobility allowance and how it affects people applying for tax relief for private transport. The generous but correct provisions in relief of excise duty and VAT on fuel made available for people who are physically handicapped to enable them to buy and use private transport are important for their independence.
People eligible for £45 per month mobility allowance were delighted when the Minister for Finance announced with a flourish that he was doubling it. They were taken aback to discover that there was a clawback. In the initial way it was reported, if they availed of the tax relief for private transport they would not get the mobility allowance. The Minister explained it to me, and I may have misunderstood, that the £45 will continue for people who get the tax relief for private transport but only those not availing of tax relief will benefit from the doubling of the mobility allowance. I said to him that it was mean minded. I have no idea why it was done other than the well known fact that the Department of Finance does not approve of the generous tax relief for handicapped people with private transport. This is part of their continuing campaign to claw back some of it.
This is an amendment on a Department of Health and Children issue. People think it is my responsibility but it is not. For the information of the House, the increased mobility allowance up to a maximum of £90 will be available only to people not benefiting from the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme. Those who benefit from both schemes will receive the mobility allowance up to a maximum of £45.60.
Mr. Ryan
As the Minister is not on social welfare, I can hardly force a vote on this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and may de discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 23, before section 21, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:
"21.–The Minister shall, a 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 allowing depreciation of capital expenditure to be permitted as a cost item for the purposes of the farm assist income assessment, particularly where it involves investments in environmental control measures.".
I am little surprised that amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related, as they refer to two different schemes, but we will deal with both of them.
Last year, I raised the matter of the farm assist scheme for lowest income farmers. It is a social welfare payment for farmers whose enterprises are totally uneconomical on their own. A couple of years ago this scheme was seen by the Government as the answer to another of the many serious depressions in farm prices. I believe that it was introduced in the budget of 1999. It was a bit of a swindle.
No, never.
It replaced the so-called farmer's dole. New assessments were made of farmers who had been in receipt of the old allowance. Many people lost out, which was wrong as most should have won on a scheme set up to respond to a drop in farm incomes which was particularly acute among small farmers. The assessment of means to determine eligibility for this scheme is unfair, because farmers are not allowed to claim as an expense investment in fixed assets, like environmental or waste controls or winter housing for cattle. They are not allowed to claim these as a depreciating cost. People who make claims for tax relief are allowed to claim against depreciating assets and are consequently given tax relief.
By implication, one speaks of profit when speaking of a tax return, yet this scheme is supposed to be for those who do not make money on their farms. The State believes it is helping by giving them this social assistance, but they are not allowed to claim against the expense of fixed items. To claim against the replacement of stock is allowed, which is fair enough. The IFA raised this contentious issue, as did I during the debate on last year's Social Welfare Bill and when I was a Member of the Dáil. This problem also applied to the farmer's unemployment assistance scheme, which this scheme replaced.
The Government rightly insists that all farmers have proper environmental controls in place, regardless of the scale of their operation, but to do so costs a lot of money. In my amendment, I call for a report on the implications of allowing depreciation of capital expenditure to be permitted as a cost item for the purposes of the farm assist income assessment, particularly where it involves investments in environmental control measures. We insist that they make major expenditure on environmental control measures like waste management, control of pollution and control of effluent, and rightly so. It is fair, however, that they be allowed to write it off as a depreciating asset, as is the case under the tax code. This would improve their means in applying for farm assist. I ask the Minister to seriously look at this important point.
In amendment No. 32, we ask that forest premia be disregarded for the purposes of farm assist. I mentioned on Second Stage that we have a policy to establish forestry covering 17% of this country's land mass by 2030. I do not think that 7% is covered by forestry at the moment. We are doing things to encourage the achievement of the objective of 17% coverage by 2030, such as the exemption from declaration for tax purposes. I must declare an interest as I have a small area of commercial forestry, from which I earn a small income of around £300 per year. It is nice that these earnings are tax-free. If my total farm income came from forest premia, I would not have to declare it for tax. Small farmers on the farm assist scheme, however, have to declare their farm assist premium, which might amount to only £400 or £500 per year. If we assume it is £500, a very little amount, it would mean £10 per week extra to the farm assist allowance were they allowed to write off that premium against their means.
If the tax return is for income tax they do not have to declare it – it is free gratis. It is a disadvantage when they apply for this scheme however, which is merely intended to keep them out of poverty. The arguments I have made regarding these two concessions are unanswerable. The Minister cannot successfully debate these issues to the contrary, as there is so much evidence concerning the way these matters are treated for tax purposes. This problem obviously proceeded from somebody in the Minister's Department not understanding the relationship between the scheme and the tax system. It will not cost a lot of money and is simply a question of fair play.
The scheme also improves environmental protection on farms, which I fully support. We ask farmers to deploy best environmental practice, including those on small farms where there are low levels of intensity of agriculture. If they adhere to this and make the investment, we should not penalise them. I rest my case, and I hope that the Minister has heard well what I have to say. This matter is not open to debate. It is an argument I cannot lose, and I do not say that arrogantly.
Mr. Ryan
Senator Connor spoke of anomalous matters with regard to means testing, which is a matter I raise most years. The reason I know about this is that it happened to an aunt of mine who has been dead for four or five years. If a person in receipt of social welfare benefit or assistance has an accident and is compensated for losses that arise, the sum of money they are given is used to assess means and thereby reduce their social welfare payment. It seems extraordinary that this happens, and indeed it happened to my aunt, and makes a mockery of the concept of compensation. It surely cannot be an expensive item.
It is wrong that an elderly person should go through the trauma of a court case and be awarded £20,000 or £30,000, only to discover their previous income from social welfare is reduced by a proportionate amount to take account of what is called "new means". The "new means" is actually compensation for a loss that had been incurred. I do not expect the Minister to solve it now, but I mention it as an anomaly like that raised by Senator Connor. It deserves to be looked at and is not an expensive issue.
Wearing my other hat as a solicitor before I came to this House, I often encountered clients who were very annoyed when it was published in the newspaper that they received compensation. It meant that the social welfare authorities would quickly follow them to take back some money. That has always been the way, because people cannot be effectively be paid twice in relation to particular instances.
I understand the concerns of the Senator. On the other hand, the Department did not hear about those people who settled their cases privately unless they declared the money. There have been generous changes in relation to the capital people can have before their means tested payment is touched. It is only fair that cognisance is taken of the fact that someone gets a massive amount of money in compensation, which ultimately is the taxpayers' money, because up to that the means tested payment they were getting was to assist them as they were on low income. However, that is not the point of this amendment.
This issue was raised in recent debates on the Social Welfare Bill. Depreciation of farm buildings is not and has not been taken into account in the social welfare code in any assessment.
It should be. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Normal expenses are allowed and allowance is made for the repair and maintenance of farm buildings, but not for improvements. The IFA has been in contact with my Department on this issue and discussions are ongoing. We are taking cognisance of some of the points raised by the IFA and by people such as Senator Connor. This issue is being considered.
The forest premium scheme is designed to replace farm income from the change of use of land from ordinary farm activity to forestry. It is unlike REPS and the compensation payments made under the SACs which compensate farmers for the material and work they put into the land to comply with the basic agri-environmental regulations of the SAC plans. The payments under the forest premium scheme would equate to other types of farm income and that is why they are regarded as income and assessed as such, as opposed to the system in relation to REPS and SACs. I cannot concede on that issue as that is the way the system operates.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply which is totally inadequate and deliberately misses the point. If a farmer is forced to make a capital investment in his farm, it will have a depreciating effect on his income. That is accepted under the tax code and it should be accepted under the social welfare code. It would be accepted if this matter was approached fairly and justly.
As regards the forest premium, I forgot to mention that the first £3,000 of REPS income is disregarded for someone on the farm assist scheme. The Minister said it is different, but it is not different. It is a generous payment made to the farmer by the European Union and it does not cost the Exchequer. These schemes, such as the beef premium scheme, the suckler cow scheme, etc, often increase the incomes of small farmers and that is used by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs to reduce the level of farm assist. In other words, we are making money out of the money the farmers are drawing down as a result of our membership of the EU and under the provisions of the Common Agricultural Policy. That is unfair in every way and that is why I must put this issue to a vote.
The Minister will not change the position this year, although I made the same point last year. I hope this gesture tonight will make such an impact on the Minister or the Department that this issue will be addressed next year. My argument cannot be defeated because there are comparisons with the tax system and with the disregard for the forest premium under REPS.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Burke, Paddy.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary.Keogh, Helen. |
McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.O'Toole, Joe.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim.Glynn, Camillus. |
Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Burke and Keogh; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 23, before section 21, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:
"21.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 feasibility of allowing individuals who were prevented from making voluntary PRSI contributions due to insufficient income at the point where compulsory social insurance cover was extended to the self-employed in April 1988 to be permitted to do so now.".
This relates to an anomaly resulting from the introduction, in 1988, of contributions for the self-employed, including farmers. This was very good but originally to qualify for the minimum old age contributory pension one had to have ten years of contributions. When Deputy De Rossa was Minister for Social Welfare that was very contentious for many who did not have ten years to go to retirement age. They were 56, 57 and 58 years of age and were required by law to make contributions, yet they found that having reached the age of 65 that they could not get a pro rata pension. That was corrected in the budget for 1997 when the first steps were taken to give a pro rata pension to people who had made at least a number of contributions. The Government has continued to improve that and last year those with five years of contributions qualified for a pro rata pension.
Even among those who were eligible to contribute for ten years there were quite a number who were not legally bound to do so if their income was below a certain level. There were many farmers who made a contribution in five of the ten years that their income was at a certain level. They now find that they do not qualify for a pension purely because the system did not allow them to make a contribution. It is for them that I make the case in this amendment. While much has been done to make the system more just we need to go a number of steps further, this being one of them. These people would have paid their £300, or whatever the sum might have been, each year but their income did not require them to do so. They never knew that they were robbing themselves of a contribution that was necessary for them to qualify for some form of contributory pension upon reaching 66 years of age.
This is about correcting an unintentional injustice which resulted from a scheme that was not well thought out. We ask the Minister to go the final step on this occasion, close all the loopholes and correct the unjust aspects of the system. There I rest my case having made an argument that is difficult, if not impossible, to gainsay.
I commend Senator Connor for tabling this important amendment. Quite a number of people are caught in this way, particularly small farmers and, in some instances, a number of very small business people. In 1988 when this measure became compulsory a number of small farmers, whom I know personally, were not notified by the health boards which were the agencies whose responsibility that was. The result is that there are people caught in this catch-22. When Deputy De Rossa was Minister he undertook a study of this and advancements have been made in relation to those who paid five years of contributions or more, but I concur with what Senator Connor has said. It would not be a great cost to the State to take care of the handful that this relates to, most of whom have had their cases highlighted over the years. There are records of those affected and it would be a great relief to them.
Increasingly, assets are disposed of to qualify for the non-contributory old age pension and that leaves many in a vulnerable position, feeling insecure and threatened. This would be a huge relief to them – we are talking about people whose earnings are very small. At one time there was serious economic stress and some were simply not in a position to make the contributions. The Minister has made a lot of progress in his Department in recent years and I appeal to him to accept the amendment proposed by Senator Connor.
There are two aspects in relation to these two amendments and to a certain extent the two previous speakers have spoken on both of them. In 1988 the Minister decided that it was appropriate that people on low incomes – the figure chosen was £2,500 – should not have to pay a contribution. They probably could not afford to live if they were required to contribute out of such a sum. The figure was set on the same basis as for employees who were not required to pay a stamp up to a figure of £2,500 at that time. That was the then figure set for old age non-contributory pensions so that anyone on or below that would not have to pay. It has not been increased to the advantage of many in the intervening years. All those whose incomes remained under £2,500 would have been entitled to apply for unemployment assistance, small holder's dole or, now, farm assist.
Some speakers mentioned Deputy De Rossa.
Mr. Ryan
Now, now.
The only thing he did was make changes to the minimum requirement of compulsory contributions. He raised the level for £156 from three years to five years.
The Minister never introduced anything as far-reaching.
Previous speakers said that Deputy De Rossa actually brought in the pro rata pension, but that is not the case. This Government brought that in. I well remember telling my dear colleague, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, when he was going on the Rodney Rice programme one morning, that the Government was strongly considering the introduction of a pro rata pension for those who were excluded from the self-employed pension because they were over 56 in 1988 and therefore did not have the minimum ten years' contributions.
I can well recall Deputy De Rossa swallowing his tongue, or his false teeth, if he has any, when Deputy O'Keeffe announced that the Government was going to do this. He disbelieved it and went so far as to ring my Department on the Monday to find out if this was true because when he was Minister he rallied against it. He accepted the advice of the officials hook, line and sinker, but this Minister did not. He decided that as a commitment had been given in our pre-election manifesto we would look after those who were unfairly excluded because they could not accumulate contributions over ten years. We did so by bringing it back to five years. Many people have been included as a result of that amendment.
Is the Minister accepting the amendment?
No, because we have gone further than we promised prior to the last election when we said we would help people who had been marginally affected. That promise was not in any way to give them a pro rata pension or a special rate pension, which we have given them. Despite pressure on previous Governments of every hue, they did not capitulate, including Deputy De Rossa as Minister. I have capitulated. Deputy Proinsias De Rossa did allow people who had made a contribution to get back the portion of the payment related to old age pension that they had made over that period. The people were, rightly, not satisfied because they had been compulsorily required to make contributions, even though the ten year limit meant that they could not qualify, being 56 years of age in 1988. The proposed amendments are in no way required because the Government has made amazing changes in this area in order to give people who were excluded the ability to apply for a pension.
There is a rule in this House against extravagant language.
There was an ideological hang-up in at least some sections of the last Government who did not want to assist self-employed people. I made changes, again very much against advice, to give people who had paid stamps prior to 1953 the right to apply for a special payment.
It is most welcome. We commend the Minister for it.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister is doing a fine job of guaranteeing that he will get no credit for anything by taking the opportunity, for which he has been waiting for a long time, to launch an attack on one of his predecessors. It is extraordinary that a Minister who, in almost every reply he made tonight, has cited the national anti-poverty strategy as one of the guiding lights of his whole philosophy forgets to mention who it was who put the national anti-poverty strategy in place, the person he has chosen to malign in his absence, Deputy De Rossa.
We are not discussing the national anti-poverty strategy. We are debating amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
Mr. Ryan
I exercised considerable restraint as a colleague of mine was unfairly and inappropriately attacked by the Minister, quite unnecessarily at this hour of the night. However, I will not sit here and allow nonsense to be talked about a man who put in place the national anti-poverty strategy by a Minister who got lucky, who got into Government when the country was awash with money and about whom the biggest question will be why he did so little when so much was possible. To turn on somebody who did so much with limited resources is unworthy of him—
He gave £1.80 to old age pensioners. I rest my case.
Mr. Ryan
—and unworthy of the style in which we have conducted this debate. I decided not to get involved in silly politics. I tried to have a debate about issues such as equality and inequality in which I thought the Minister was interested. I seriously wonder about that now, when for some reason he raises the name of an individual who has nothing to do with this issue to provide entertainment for himself and perhaps for his party colleague. It was a complete waste of time and did the Minister's case no service.
I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. There was a minimum level of contribution one had to have in order to qualify for a contributory question. Deputy De Rossa, as Minister, was the first do away with that rule, and I give him full credit for that. I give this Minister credit for what he has done, but there is unfinished business here, and I am only asking him to address that rather than ranting on with this mantra of self-congratulation and boasting about what he has done. There is still wrong being done to many people and we are trying to right that wrong. If the Minister is not part of that attempt to right the wrong, he ought to be ashamed of himself.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 23, before section 21, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:
"21.–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 feasibility of allowing eligibility for the special 50% state contributory old age pension to be extended to those aged between 60 and 65 years in April 1988 when compulsory social insurance was extended to the self-employed and for allowing the Special Pension rate available to the group aged between 56 and 60 years in April 1988 to be increased from 50% to 75%.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
I have only one question on section 22. It is about the recovery of payments from financial institutions. I am intrigued to know what used to happen and what will still happen until this becomes law.
In some cases when a death was not notified the bank continued to be paid. When my Department ultimately became aware that overpayments had been made there was some difficulty in getting them back. This is to enable that to be done.
Mr. Ryan
To get the payments back from the financial institutions?
Yes.
Mr. Ryan
Do I take it that the respectable financial institutions of the State held on to money to which they had no legal right because the Minister could not prove that he was entitled to take it back?
That is not totally the case. There were procedures that had to be gone through, which made it quite protracted. This will enable us as of right to get that money back.
Mr. Ryan
I was just curious.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 23 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
I do not know whether this relates to section 29 or to section 30. My comments relate to Part 5 which has to do with the alignment of the tax and calendar years. The Minister has said that for understandable reasons it may not be possible to pay people on 1 January and that the money will be paid later. However, people on social welfare do not have the spare resources to wait two months. One way of dealing with it would be to pay an increased bonus to people coming up to Christmas to compensate them for the inevitable delay. From what the Minister has said, we might be talking about an increase of £20 a week. That is a large amount of money in terms of people's incomes, and to leave them waiting for two months is to make their situation quite desperate. They are not like the rest of us who can go to our comparatively friendly bank manager and ask him to hold on because we have money coming. People do not have those resources, and one solution would be to pay them an increased allowance at the end of the current year to cover them for the two months it will take the administrative system to catch up on the euro and other problems.
When this Government came into office people on social welfare were waiting seven months for the increase in their payments to kick in. As a result of the decision to align the tax year—
Mr. Ryan
Is the Minister getting cranky?
I have to be factual and fair to everyone, including myself. Comments were made as to why we pushed the budget as far as 5 December, given that we are bringing in the social welfare and tax changes on 1 January. Irrespective of whether we picked 5 December or an earlier date, say in October, we still would not have been able to deliver payments on 1 January because of the quite difficult system of post office books which are changed twice a year. We would have needed to announce the changes in July in order for payments to be made on 1 January.
The sizeable number of people who receive their social welfare payments through electronic fund transfer will be paid on 1 January. If people want to be paid on 1 January they can have their payments made through electronic fund transfer. The vast majority of people on social welfare are paid by the book process, swipe cards or cheques and there will inevitably be some delays.
We have increased the Christmas bonus this year from 70% to 100%. It is a separate issue. Everyone does not receive the Christmas bonus so it would not take care of the situation to which the Senator referred. The Senator can take it that the Government is endeavouring to keep the time between the budget and the delivery of payments as tight as possible. The Government has agreed, because of the difficulty with post office books, to allow further investment in machinery by the company awarded the contract to ensure that it is able to able to deliver within a much shorter time than heretofore.
Mr. Ryan
The objective commentators who suggest that the date of the budget has something to do with the next election are not anywhere near the truth. It is simply a matter of administrative convenience. One objective commentator concluded that the next election was the only reason he could see for the date of the budget.
Most of those objective commentators prophesied that the Government would not last until the end of the summer of 1997. A number of people believed the Govern ment would announce a budget in October and go to the country in the autumn. We did not do that and caused much surprise among the political wizards around the House who are not politicians. In any event, the Government would not announce a budget in December. This is a good indication that we will do what we have been saying for a long time, that is, we will endeavour to see out our full period in office.
Question put and agreed.
Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
I have no desire to keep the Minister here a minute longer than necessary but I wish to raise a genuine concern. The introduction of the euro will be an enormous shock for society generally and a particular shock for people who are badly off and in many cases, by definition, not well educated. Does the Department have any measures which will help people to understand the implications of the changeover to the euro? I am not a successful self-employed businessman who thought the value of his money would be reduced by 20% because the euro would only be worth 80 pence. I am concerned about people who believe they will be ripped off.
As I already announced in the Dáil, people in receipt of social welfare will have their payments rounded up to the nearest convenient 10 cents. People will gain in social welfare terms as a result of changeover to the euro. I fully accept the Senator's point about the difficulties which exist, particularly when one thinks back to the confusion which existed about the introduction of decimalisation. There will probably be further confusion on this occasion and I assure the Senator that we are keenly aware of this. Major work is being undertaken and there will be an information campaign in the not too distant future so that people fully understand the situation in relation to the changeover to the euro. This will not totally do away with the confusion which exists.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 33 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules A to F, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his forbearance and Members on both sides of the House, particularly Senator Leonard who has been here through thick and thin during the debate. I also thank my officials who have been with me during all Stages in the Dáil and Seanad. I compliment them for the fourth year in a row for their excellent assistance to me as Minister.
I thank the Minister and his officials who put a huge amount of work into the Social Welfare Bill every year. One cannot take this away from any Minister.
I regret that the Minister did not accept our amendments. I noted from other debates that the Minister was more giving than he had been and was more open on some amendments. While I am sorry he did not accept our amendments, we have had a good debate and raised with the Minister and his officials issues about which people feel strongly. I wish the Department well in the implementation of all the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Ryan
I am disappointed the Minister did not accept all our wonderful amendments. That said, I thank him for the by and large good humoured way he dealt with the debate during a long day which I suspect he thought would have been shorter.
I also thank him for his fairly comprehensive responses. One of the misfortunes of being a member of a small party is that one ends up dealing with many Ministers. While one does not ever get cross with a Minister for not accepting amendments, it is annoying when he will not deal with the issues raised. In fairness, the Minister dealt with all the issues raised by the Opposition. We may not have agreed with the way he dealt with them but he did not duck or avoid any of them. This is to credit and it makes everyone's life a good deal more pleasant.
On a personal note, somebody close to me had dealings with the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs twice during the past four or five years. In contrast to the situation 15 years ago, the Department is a model of efficiency. I am sure there are anomalies but my family's experience of the Department is of a good quality service provided quickly and efficiently with the minimum of fuss. Whatever my views about policy, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has advanced considerably in terms of the efficiency with which it deals with its customers.
We have had, to quote Senator Ryan, a tantalising debate and I thank the Minister and his officials. When we get compliments from Senator Ryan it is probably a good end to the day.
Question put and declared carried.