Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Dec 2002

Vol. 170 No. 25

Social Welfare Bill, 2002: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of increasing child benefit, pensions and other social welfare payments in line with previously stated Government policy commitments, including the National Anti-Poverty Strategy and the Programme for Government.

We have debated this at some length so I will not labour the point. The programme for Government included significantly higher increases than provided for in the budget. We have heard how the pension has been increased, over the last number of years, to a level which would not have been envisaged at one stage. However, that was distributing the wealth of the Celtic tiger. People were entitled to it, particularly the pensioners who formed and shaped society as we now know it. They contributed throughout their working lives. They are entitled to more significant increases than the paltry amounts proposed.

The increase in child benefit clearly does not meet the commitment in the programme for Government. I appeal to the Minister to view the amendment favourably and accept it.

This amendment would require another report. A frequent criticism is that we have initiated so many reports over the last number of years and people ask what use they have. I appreciate that the Senator is looking at the NAPS and the programme for Government which we have five years to deliver. The NAPS was reviewed in February of this year. It is an extensive and all-encompassing programme, also of five years duration, taking in not just payments and adequacies of payments but also many other targets. In that context there is not a huge necessity to commission yet another report.

However, as elected representatives the Senators have taken the opportunity, I am sure, to look at the implications of any budgetary matter and review it over the year, which is something I will do in the numerous reviews which are taking place in the Department of many of the schemes. Some of these have been brought to my attention and Members of both Houses would like me to review and re-assess them. In that context, the Department will continually review the income adequacies of payments. In the NAPS programme we were moving towards €150 per week in 2002. We have already achieved that and we are moving towards €200 in the old age pensions by 2007.

It is also important to reiterate that increases must take account of available resources. I am sure that some people on my right will remind me about promises. The following commitment has been made: "The Government will continue to pursue a strategy of increasing social welfare payments, as resources permit, so that people will have an income level to sustain an acceptable standard of living." It is therefore unfair and a little disingenuous to say that we have not delivered. We are doing it in the context of the resources and the targets, which are the pensions, and the €150 base line in 2002.

I am sure that the Senator, over the next year, will look at the relevance of the increases in social welfare benefits in the context of the NAPS and the programme for Government, both of which will be reviewed in due course and are always discussed at the social inclusion committee of the Cabinet. I appreciate what the Senator has put forward but I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of abolishing the means test for a carer's allowance and introducing a top-up carer's payment for those in receipt of another social welfare payment.

We had a lengthy debate on this matter earlier. The Minister gave details of the cost of the proposal. One of the points she made was that we do not know how many carers there are in the country. However, we could look at setting up a national carers' register and a data base for all carers so that we would know the exact number of people involved in caring for a dependant. We are currently attempting to second guess the numbers. Since the lack of statistics forms part of the argument which prevents the abolition of the means test, there is a greater case for introducing either a register or compiling a data base.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to the many thousands of carers for the support they provide in an area which falls into the responsibility of the State. In doing so they should be recognised. I have had cases, as I am sure has everyone else, of people not qualifying for the carer's allowance because of the means test, yet they were not well off. However, due to the structures which exist they did not satisfy the means test and were pushed to the point where they did not qualify at all. I appeal to the Minister's good nature to accept this amendment.

I support Senator McCarthy's amendment. Will the Minister indicate to the House the latest number of full-time carers according to her Department's figures? On the previous occasions figures were collected – approximately two years ago – the number was about 24,000. However, the Carers Association has continually informed colleagues on all sides of the House that the actual figure is about 120,000. A pilot scheme run jointly by the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs two years ago came up with a figure of 24,000. This is a minimal projection. How many of these are receiving the full rate of carer's allowance?

Senator McCarthy referred to another scheme aimed at trying to determine the numbers involved. We have been at this for a number of years now and there has been no change. The problem is that even of the people represented by the Department's figures, a majority do not receive carer's allowance. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House.

I do not support the amendment. It worries me when people mention, as they did earlier, the State's responsibility. I sometimes wonder whether they have forgotten about the family's responsibility. As a sister, and perhaps some day a mother, of somebody with a disability, I believe it is my responsibility, not that of the State, to look after a person in need. We are moving away from our responsibilities and pushing them on to the State. Unfortunately, in doing this we are creating a gap that we can never fill, an expectation of what the State must do for the people who care for others.

One of the sad things about the changes we have seen in recent years is the lack of responsibility people feel for members of their families. They are happy just to push them away into nursing homes and move on. We must be careful to ask ourselves whether, after bringing children into the world or being brought up by parents, we do not have a responsibility to look after them. Are we abdicating responsibility for our mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, sisters or brothers by not looking after them when they are in need?

The issue of working with carers and looking after people in need is under constant review, but we must be careful. There will be a cost associated with every decision and we must decide where we want to spend money. I am not in favour of the removal of means testing for carers, which has been discussed many times in the House. If I have a parent who needs to go into a nursing home for full-time care because I am not able to look after her and I have the means – through an inheritance or earnings – to pay for it, I do not believe I should be entitled to extra money. For that reason, I am against the abolition of the means test. However, I accept that it needs to be reviewed and we must constantly move towards widening the band of eligible incomes. There are better ways to spend our money than by giving it to people who already have a great deal of their own and who are in a position to look after someone or employ a person to do so, without a consequent impingement on their disposable income.

I support Senator Cox's views. The carer's benefit scheme has proved hugely successful in helping carers who are available for work, etc.

It has had a very low take-up rate.

It has proven successful in recent times.

There are 20,100 full-time carers in receipt of carer's allowance. This represents approximately 39% of the figure of 52,000 carers which was estimated by a census pilot survey.

I apologise for my underestimation.

This is the number of people who are caring for someone for more than three hours per day. There are other carers who just drop in on people, etc.

Carer's benefit was also mentioned. That is a new scheme which has only been in existence for two years. There are 1,400 people participating in the scheme, which has been very successful.

It has been slow.

We have tried to encourage people to become involved and to take carer's leave. Employers have been generous in facilitating this.

We discussed the removal of the means test on Second Stage. At present, it would cost about €150 million to abolish the means test. In the programme for Government we aim to bring 5,000 new carers into the system. By introducing the income disregards we have been able to take another 1,700 into the scheme this year and I hope that over the course of the scheme the numbers will rise to 5,000.

One of the issues we will soon have to face is the ageing population. My Department and the Department of Health and Children, through the health strategy, has promised to reform the current arrangements. A study on the future financing of long-term care is being finalised. We are exploring strategic issues such as care, home subvention, the role of the social insurance fund and the role of carer's allowance and carer's benefit and their possible financing through PRSI. We are taking into consideration many approaches that have been tried abroad. A number of pilot studies are taking place through the Department of Health and Children. I will soon be able to present to the Government, along with the Minister for Health and Children, a strategic way of financing long-term care. The report will also be published very shortly.

We all agree that the role of carers is very important. We often do not appreciate the difficulties they experience. We are giving them recognition by adding to their income, although it would not be possible to reward sufficiently some people who are caring for 24 hours a day. Respite care and facilities are very important and we are working with the Department of Health and Children to make sure that these are available to carers, both to assist them in emergencies and to give them a break. We are currently considering the issues raised by the Senator in the context of the report.

Amendment put.

Burke, Paddy.Burke, Ulick.Coonan, Noel.Hayes, Brian.Henry, Mary.McCarthy, Michael.

McHugh, Joe.Norris, David.O'Meara, Kathleen.Phelan, John.Ryan, Brendan.Terry, Sheila.

Níl

Bohan, Eddie.Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Callanan, Peter.Cox, Margaret.Dardis, John.Dooley, Timmy.Feeney, Geraldine.Fitzgerald, Liam.Glynn, Camillus.Hanafin, John.Kenneally, Brendan.Kett, Tony.Kitt, Michael P.Leyden, Terry.

MacSharry, Marc.Mansergh, Martin.Minihan, John.Mooney, Paschal C.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Rourke, Mary.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Phelan, Kieran.Ross, Shane.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Kate.White, Mary M.Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators McCarthy and O'Meara; Níl, Senators Minihan and Moylan.
Amendment declared lost.
Sitting suspended at 3.08 p.m. and resumed at 3.15 p.m.Sections 2 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

I thank Senators for facilitating the speedy passage of the Bill. I wish them all a happy Christmas and a prosperous new year. Given the length of their campaign, I am sure they will enjoy the rest.

I thank the Minister for taking time out of her busy schedule to debate this important legislation with us. I wish her well in her portfolio.

I thank the Minister for listening to what Senators had to say today and on previous occasions. I thank all Senators who contributed to this debate and wish everyone, Members and staff alike, a very happy Christmas.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I also wish the Minister a very happy Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share