Gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí uilig a bhí páirteach sa díospóireacht seo. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil muid uilig ar an taobh céanna ach is breá an rud go bhfuil ocáid agam agus ag mo Roinn éisteacht leis an méid atá le rá ag bunadh an tSeanaid mar gheall ar an Bhille tábhachtach seo. Bhí díospóireacht fada faoi sa Dáil nuair a luadh go leor de na rudaí a luadh anseo.
My experience at the Department of Social and Family Affairs is short. There has been a recurring theme to what has been said on this issue both here and in the Lower House. This reflects the practicality of politics and those issues which come to the fore when caring for those we represent.
The spectrum of funding provided, the change in the economic climate and the value of what the Government has given to the less well-off are exemplified in one figure. My Department was allocated €530 million in this year's budget with only €180 million in tax concessions being provided for. That is the right balance in the context of the climate in which we now find ourselves.
Like other Ministers and Members of either House, we would like to have extra money to do more. As we do not, we have to prioritise. One such priority is the support of the elderly which is progressively coming towards the recommendations of the NAPS and An Agreed Programme for Government. Equally, carers are an important element of the programme, as is the elimination of child poverty. We will focus for the next couple of years on addressing the many ideas outlined in the NAPS. This is our first year in operation and God willing we will have more years to deliver. We are moving towards the delivery of our programme and commitments while not taking from existing commitments within the Department. However, we must prioritise.
I regret other Members are not present to hear my comments. There has been much criticism in respect of child benefit increases. When appointed, I said there would be difficulties. It will cost more than €400 million to deliver on the next tranche of the package. My full allocation this year was €530 million. Should I neglect the rest of those for whom I must care? The answer is, "No". I had to prioritise. Following discussions, I decided we would commit ourselves to delivering on the programme but at a slower pace. When we achieve our target, we will have given the greatest increases in child benefit which will address two issues – child poverty and child care. The provision of child care is an ongoing issue and we have not yet been able to come up with the right formula. The universality of child benefit has in many ways addressed issues for the working mother and the mother who remains at home. It is focused on addressing child poverty. There is agreement on all sides of the House that this is the right way forward. It is our intention to deliver what we promised.
The issue of carers was raised a number of times. My predecessor, Deputy Michael Woods, introduced the allowance. We have increased the income disregard in recent years. There has been a split of opinion as to whether we should invest all our money in removing the means test. It is difficult to say if that would be the right way forward. Senator Cox said those with a great deal of money should not expect the State to care for their ill relatives. This raises issues of morality and equality. We do not provide a payment for caring. I am sure it is the opinion of many Senators that one could not pay anyone to care for another. It is an emotional issue. We make payments in recognition of caring. I hope to be in a position to increase the income disregard in this area to include more carers in the scheme.
The respite care grant has been beneficial to many. We delivered an additional €100 this year and intend to increase it further. I am favourably disposed, if I have the money, to looking at the provision of respite care for others who do not receive the allowance. The Minister for Health and Children, my predecessor and I looked at the financing of long-term care. We will need to take a holistic approach to income support and not have the health boards, district nurses, voluntary groups and the Department going in different directions. We must target resources at areas where they will best be spent. Society has changed greatly and couples are having fewer children resulting in fewer people to care for the elderly and disabled. Regardless of which party is in government, it will have to come up with ways to address this important issue which is being looked at by an Oireachtas committee. I will be delighted to facilitate it as much as possible and look forward to the findings of its deliberations which may throw up some practical, poignant points. We will not be found wanting in listening and trying to address the concerns of many.
Many Senators have said that it takes time to organise payment of carer's benefit, a matter we will look into. It is administratively time consuming. One must ensure the person being cared for is eligible. We will raise the matter with employers when discussing delivery of the scheme. People are only eligible for a short time and the scheme is quite structured.
Senator Kenneally mentioned the summer jobs scheme. Responsibility for the scheme was transferred to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, made the decision to end it. The Senator's concerns could be vented towards my colleague, Deputy Ó Cuív, but I will advise the Minister that the issue has been raised here.
With regard to why people might be on disability allowance for a long period and not automatically entitled to invalidity pension, that pension has previously involved a definitive decision whereas disability benefit does not. I am concerned about the message we might give out to people who have a difficulty over a certain period, be it with depression or an injury. We should not say to them that they are being slotted into permanent disability through the invalidity pension scheme. Even if there is a change in the Department in that those on invalidity pension have been given an opportunity to have therapeutic work – which is to try to encourage people back into the workforce – I would have concerns with regard to changing disability benefit so that people would automatically move to invalidity pension after one year. It gives out the wrong message.
I appreciate that there are concerns. For some, invalidity pension has its additions such as the free schemes, but it sends out the wrong message. This is particularly true for those in the younger age bracket who may find themselves able to take up a course, for example, and move on to a different type of employment, not necessarily in the area in which they were previously employed.
With regard to Senator Ulick Burke's concerns about field officers, I accept that I am responsible for all those who work in the Department. If there is a particular concern, I would be glad to hear it because the Department prides itself on having a good rapport with many of its clients in the area. People sometimes feel, rightly or wrongly, that their rights are infringed upon. I must balance the need to enforce necessary controls and the needs of those who are entitled to and require support. That is an important issue. If the Senator has a specific concern about a particular family, I would like to address that issue on his behalf. He could perhaps give me the details privately after this debate.
Senator Ulick Burke also mentioned disability benefit and medical assessment, an issue to which I referred earlier. I took the opportunity to meet the medical people in the Department. Naturally, there is independence in that regard and I am not competent to challenge the professionals. I appreciate that some people might say they were only present for five minutes and that the relevant professional did not take a good look at them or that two or three consultants had made a decision. That is why there is an appeals process.
If people have particular concerns, I would like to hear about them. The Department reviews its procedures on an ongoing basis. It was in a position this year to appoint more medical assessors to deal with appeals faster and we are trying to deal with the backlogs that, unfortunately, have developed. There was a meeting last week in the Department and we are moving towards addressing the issue of appeals. I appreciate that people are awaiting a final decision on their entitlements.
Senator Daly spoke about the changes with regard to the elderly. These came about because those entitled to benefit were militated against and were not getting their spouse's six week after-death payment.
The other issue referred to by the Senator was that of probate and people's estates. The Department's view is that it is not the relative, but rather the estate, that would be involved in a repayment to the Department through probate. Naturally, people will see the estate as their own and I appreciate that. However, there has been a huge change in recent years in dealing with these issues. I think the Department can be sensitive to particular circumstances on repayments. If there is a difficulty, the Department can address those issues confidentially with people.
The issue of voluntary organisations was raised. I was in something of a quandary when I lost the voluntary and community side of my Department to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. That aspect naturally blended into my Department's work as a practical approach to service delivery and working with the organisations. In many ways, the Department of Social and Family Affairs has not lost that in regard to its field officers.
I took the opportunity to meet representatives of the relevant organisations in a pre-budget forum and I try to meet them as often as possible to address the issues they raise on an ongoing basis. I rely on those organisations to put forward their concerns. The pre-budget forum last year was considering spending €3 billion more than was available in the Department's budget, so, naturally, I could not deliver on everything. However, I take on board many of the issues involved. The Department will work in partnership with others in the coming years and will try to deliver on those issues.
The question of the back to education allowance has been raised by several Members. Anyone in receipt of the allowance at present, and those in a postgraduate situation, will not be affected.
With regard to the payment at work or during summer holidays, many of those on the scheme would have been on unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. If they are not in a position to find work, they will revert to their previous position and would be facilitated within the eligibility criteria for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. There will not be a loss to those people if they are not able to find a job during the summer because they will revert to a payment from the Department. I hope to meet the Union of Students in Ireland to discuss this matter.
Decisions had to be made. I have received many representations on the postgraduate issue from the universities and the students' unions. I looked at the figures and the target, which was to provide second chance education at either second or undergraduate level. It then progressed to postgraduate level and moved on.