Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Mar 2003

Vol. 172 No. 3

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. B. Hayes:

I apologise on behalf of our spokesperson, Senator Cummins, who regrets greatly that he is unable to take this important Bill because he has been in hospital in recent weeks. He has asked me to stand in for him tonight and tomorrow. I welcome the Minister and her officials, whom I know very well given that I was social welfare spokesperson for my party for two years in the Dáil. I admire the officials greatly for their knowledge of what is one of the most complicated areas of public policy and for the advice they have given Governments, Members and committees of the Houses over the years.

Many Governments have, over the past ten or 15 years, seen a radical reduction in consistent poverty. Ireland's figures compare favourably with those of other countries given the considerable reduction in the number of people in consistent poverty. Such people may not have a house, warm clothes or enough money to provide the bare essentials.

The main problem we face, which has been exacerbated in recent budgets, is the rise in relative income poverty in spite of the fact that we have had a very successful policy on reducing consistent poverty. The gap has grown substantially in relative terms in the past seven years in particular. Part of the problem concerns the social welfare system, for which the Minister is responsible, but a more significant part concerns taxation policy. There are only two ways in which the State can have an impact on people's income, either through direct taxation or social welfare.

We have seen many people doing exceptionally well in recent years – more luck to them – but although the very poor have had increases in the finances entering their household, budget after budget, there has not been a dramatic change. Some do not have the skills necessary to re-enter the workforce to avail of some of the income opportunities that exist. That is a constant problem at the heart of framing social welfare policy, just as it is in respect of taxation.

Yesterday The Irish Times produced figures on spending on social protection in the European Union. The amount of money was calculated as a percentage of GDP and I was astonished to see that we are at the bottom of the scale. We spend 17.7% of our GDP on social protection – half of what is spent in France or Germany.

Dr. Mansergh:

There are demographic factors.

Mr. B. Hayes:

There are demographic arguments. It is true that we have a considerable number of people in the under-25 category but it is interesting that countries such as Britain, which has quite similar demographics to ours, has much better figures. Historically, Britain has benefited from the national health service and other forms of social expenditure that we have not implemented. We are still rock bottom when it comes to social spending, whether it is on social welfare, housing, education or a myriad of other areas. While we all accept that exceptionally large sums of money have been available in recent years, we are coming from a low base. That needs to be recognised when trying to frame our social welfare policy.

I have great sympathy for the Minister in her new role. As somebody who did his best to understand the complexity of social welfare policy for two years, I realise that her Department is huge and largely administrative in nature. The Minister finds herself administering schemes that have been established willy-nilly by many Ministers for social welfare since the consolidation Acts were first passed around the 1960s. She faces a problem in that a change to one scheme will clearly have an adverse effect on another. This is not how we would devise social welfare policy if we were to start afresh. If we were to do so, we would have a totally new approach.

The Minister is in the first year of her term as Minister with responsibility for social welfare. A significant part of this responsibility involves making sound arguments to the Department of Finance every year to get money that will allow for changes to be made. Her job should also involve the radical reform of social welfare policy. I am not speaking from an ideological perspective, from the left or the right, but there needs to be a systematic root and branch reform of the way in which we administer social welfare policy.

A long-term policy of many parties has been to harmonise social welfare policy and the taxation system. That is now possible for the first time because of the introduction of taxation credits. It could be argued that every citizen, regardless of his age, employment status or marital status, should be able to know the basic financial input to which he is entitled on this basis. The introduction of taxation credits affords the Minister an opportunity to introduce substantial reform of social welfare policy over the remainder of her term in office. She should spend time doing this.

We have developed a considerable number of social welfare schemes and I am sure the Minister's officials will tell me how many there are at the end of the debate. It is a nightmare for the average person to understand the system. I know that Deputies and Senators spend much time trying to explain to people their basic entitlements. We would do a better job if we brought the concept of the taxation credit, the cornerstone of our taxation policy, to bear on social welfare policy. This would be a good day's work in terms of trying to bring about real reform.

The real object of this Bill and that presented to the House in December is to implement the changes announced in the last budget. Most of the increases this year are puny in the extreme. This is because the management of the economy in the past year, particularly the large splurge of spending that took place before the election, has left us all trying to catch up with the financial irregularities that currently pertain. That is why the poorest of the poor will have to put up with very insignificant increases in respect of many schemes this year.

Consider the basic increases of between €6 and €11 that the Department of Social and Family Affairs is proposing and which were provided for in the Bill in December and in this Bill. When this basic increase is compared to the hyper inflation experienced in the marketplace, people are going to lose out. There have been increases of up to 10% in ESB charges. On 1 April, gas charges are set to increase by 9.5 to 10%. The increase of the lower VAT rate will impose additional burdens. All these, coupled with increases in motor taxation, television licence fees, council rents and the wide range of increases in the price of commodities will see the benefits provided by the Bill reduced in net terms.

I have always argued – the Minister can verify by reading my contributions to the Committee Stages of previous Social Welfare Bills – that inflation has a detrimental effect on low income earners. In economics class, the lecturer will always start by saying that inflation has the biggest impact on low income earners. They do not have the resources to tackle inflation, unlike those in a better financial position. After these changes have been implemented, they should be looked at again to see if benefits should be increased, in particular for low income earners.

Some years ago, there was a sharp increase in inflation over six months. The former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Dermot Ahern, wanted such a re-examination, but the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, opposed it. That information was acquired through a FOI request – God bless the Act – in the days when we used to find out what was happening around the Cabinet table. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was a lone voice in arguing that those who suffered that difficult six-month period should see another increase in benefits. This year, I predict we will see the same argument come August and September, if the current problems of growing inflation continue.

The social welfare increases proposed in the Social Welfare Bill and the December Bill fall short of the targets in the national anti-poverty strategy. There has been cross-party support for this strategy since 1997. I congratulated the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, when he reviewed the programme before the last election. There are significant targets set out within the programme. However, on the basis of the figures presented to the House by the Minister, those targets will not be met within the two-year timeframe set out by the review.

We welcome the increase over the years in child benefit, which was long overdue. It is the most important payment to the family unit. For many women it provides a financial boost to single-income homes. Child poverty is a significant problem here because, as pointed out by Senator Mansergh, in contrast to other EU states, Ireland has more children per head of population.

Fine Gael supports the progress made in increasing child benefits. However, the Minister knows that the Government's pre-election promise on child benefit has been broken. This is a let-down for many families who expected to receive the full amount. The increases proposed –€8 and €10 per month – are only a quarter of the full amount promised. In a deliberate political exercise large benefits were promised to people ten days prior to the last election. From a public policy perspective, it will be considered a bad day's work. People expected the money as soon as possible but that has not been the case. The spurious argument made to me was that it would happen at the first opportunity when the payment mechanism was resolved. That was just not true. There is a deliberate Government—

Mary Coughlan:

Maybe the Senator will run the Department for a week and then see how true it is.

Mr. B. Hayes:

I wish I had the time. Maybe in a few years' time.

Mary Coughlan:

We could jobshare for a week.

Mr. B. Hayes:

I suspect there might be a good deal more job satisfaction over there, compared to this purgatory.

Mr. McCarthy:

Would the offer be means tested?

Mr. B. Hayes:

People saw that promise for what it was worth. Many people were bought over by that kind of Ceaucescu type stroke.

Ms Cox:

Go home.

Mr. B. Hayes:

It is not the way to develop public policy. It comes, then, as no surprise that the Government can deliver only 80% of their promises because of the financially changed circumstances.

Since we have moved to a higher pay-out for child benefit, we should consider paying it on a weekly basis rather than a monthly basis. More people could obtain child benefit through the electronic mechanism which can credit payments to a bank account. This could be done on a weekly basis.

I have much to say about many matters, in particular the carer's allowance. I welcome the Minister's decision to give responsibility to the health boards for the payment of the orphan and foster child allowance. Many grandparents have become foster parents of their own grandchildren, particularly in cases where the parents are drug addicts. The majority of people in this situation cannot obtain the payment – some can, though, in exceptional circumstances. It is a new phenomena, particularly in working class areas, where the grandmother, in her late 50s or 60s, is having to rear children all over again. Can this be fully extended to these cases? I will also make some comments on the social welfare allowance.

We will not vote against this Bill tonight. We will instead put forward 15 amendments tomorrow and we look forward to that debate.

Ms Cox:

It amuses me on this side of the House to hear how often the phrase "mismanagement of finances" is trotted out from the Opposition benches, as if the economic success we enjoyed over recent years, and the difference that it made, can be just wiped away with that one phrase. It is time Senators on the other side explained what they mean by it. Has "mismanagement of finances" allowed the Government to allocate €10 billion in social welfare provisions for 2003? It is a pity that the Government does not have the benefit of the Opposition's knowledge so as to improve this allocation. While €10 million is not as much as I would like and there are areas I want to talk—

Mr. B. Hayes:

The figure is €10 billion.

Ms Cox:

This does not come from the mismanagement of finances.

Mr. B. Hayes:

The Senator left herself a bit short there.

Ms Cox:

It annoys me when I hear the claim that the women of Ireland were paid off by thirty pieces of silver in the child benefit increase paid to them before the last election. How stupid does the Opposition think we are? Do they think people sell their souls or their votes for 30 pieces of silver or whatever back payment they receive? That is a disgraceful indictment of the women of Ireland and I reject it as a slur on every mother. They did not sell their souls. I did not sell my soul.

Mr. B. Hayes:

Selling is the Government's business.

Ms Cox:

The Senator said that women who received their legitimate back payment voted for Fianna Fáil because they got a paltry few pounds in a back payment in the April to May period. That is absolutely ridiculous and I completely reject it. It is a sin that it is put on the record of this House.

Mr. B. Hayes:

Is that a mortal or a venial sin?

Mr. McCarthy:

It is a venial sin on this side of the House.

Ms Cox:

I very much welcome the focus on child benefit, as a payment that is not taxed or means tested. The message should continue to go very clearly from the Department of Social and Family Affairs and from the Houses of the Oireachtas to the Department of Finance that this payment is not to be means tested or taxed. This is a payment that goes to the heart of the family. It is one of the most fundamental payments to prevent child poverty and to provide many people in difficult situations with the money they need to meet some of their household bills. Child benefit must continue to increase to take into consideration the type of expenses it is intended to cover. It is a support for the family and for the lone parent. It is a universal payment and must stay as it is.

The Minister knows my feelings on this payment. I am disappointed that we did not increase it to the level that we expected. I understand and accept, however, that not everything was possible in a year when there were difficult choices to be made, but the mark must be set as we face into the next two years that we have to protect this payment. In the context of a payment to a three child family the benefit is now at €408.50 every month, and for a family of four children the payment is €565.80 beginning this year. That is a very fair payment but I want to see it increased because it is making a difference to families. I will continue to defend it for as long as I am in a position to do so and hopefully get it increased each year to achieve what we promised to do and what I believe is a fair and rightful payment.

From the outset, however, I had a fundamental disagreement with one aspect of child benefit because it should not be used to pay for child care for people who are out at work. We continue to have a problem with the cost of child care. There are not enough places available. In certain circumstances if a woman is pregnant and looks for a crèche place she has no hope of getting a place for a child under one year of age in most commercial crèches. The reason is the ratio of staff to children and the cost of looking after the child according to the child care regulations. While I accept that the regulations are necessary, I believe we have serious problems in relation to how a woman cares for her baby. It is good to have parental leave and extended maternity benefits but if a woman needs to go back to the workplace, maybe because she is the breadwinner in the family, we have a responsibility to provide the type of child care that she needs or to create a system of better crèche facilities for young babies. That is the huge challenge facing us and it is becoming more apparent as the population increases.

Although the issue of maternity leave is not specifically related to this Social Welfare Bill, we have a difficulty in relation to the implementation of the maternity leave requirements. The Minister knows quite well that Ireland must have the highest rate of premature babies in the world. This is because when women put down dates to claim maternity benefit they give dates two or three weeks after the due date of the baby. The legislation that comes under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform forces healthy women to take four weeks maternity leave prior to the birth of the baby and many women do not feel the need to do that. If they are healthy enough to do their work why should they be forced to take four weeks leave before the baby is born? Everybody colludes in this fixing of dates – employers, doctors, and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We have to stop people telling lies.

This message needs to go to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The last time I raised the issue, when Deputy Michael McDowell was Attorney General, he said it was a problem for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Now he is in the Department of Justice and I want the Minister to take the message back to him that this is his problem and we are going to solve it in the lifetime of this Government if I have anything to do with it. It should be a matter of choice if I am able to work those two or four weeks before my baby is due—

Mr. B. Hayes:

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is shaking as the Senator speak.

Ms Cox:

I hope he is because he has not met me when I am upset about maternity leave. I do not have to worry about it at the moment, before the question is asked.

Mary Coughlan:

The Senator is not entitled to it anyway.

Ms Cox:

That is another point. Let us not go in to the whole issue of maternity leave for Members of the Oireachtas and members of local authorities.

Mr. B. Hayes:

Correct.

Mr. McCarthy:

I agree.

Ms Cox:

That is a problem. Relying on the pairing system while one is sitting in the labour ward and missing a vote which might cause the downfall of the Government is not something that Members of this Parliament should have to support.

No doubt the people on the other side of the House will say we do not have a commitment to carers and we should have a carer's allowance for everyone, but that is not possible now. Despite the difficult circumstances this year we have increased the respite grant, bringing it up to €735 a year for one person, and to €1,470 for two people. That is to be welcomed. This is a payment to people who look after the disabled, or elderly relatives, and it makes a huge difference in a household when that cheque comes in, whether from the Department of Social and Family Affairs or from the health board. I want to see that continue to show the carers that the Government values their work and recognises that it cannot be done 24 hours a day, seven days a week without some respite to enable carers to do their job properly.

I also welcome the increased disregards in relation to eligibility. Continuing to increase the disregards in order for people to benefit from the carer's allowance is the way to go. There is, however, an anomaly in the system whereby the carer cannot receive two social welfare payments. If a widower or widow is receiving a State pension or a pay related pension and then becomes a carer, that person cannot receive the carer's allowance. This is discrimination because they would have a disregard if their spouse were alive.

Senator Brian Hayes was right in that there are opportunities to look at reform of the social welfare system. It is time to look outside the box and to make the changes, some of which may be difficult. If they involve inclusion and supporting the disadvantaged it is time to make sure that we address the anomalies in the system. We must put the money into the pockets of those who need it most.

I welcome the increase in carer's allowance of €10 for those over 66 and of €7 for those under 66. Carer's benefit was one of the most creative legislative provisions ever made. It allows people to take carer's leave from their employment in order to look after a relative who is ill or in need of full-time care in the home. However, the system is relatively difficult to access for people in these circumstances who find themselves under stress in the home and at work. They must apply for carer's leave, have forms signed by doctors and employers and apply for carer's benefit. The two different systems involved need to be streamlined and there is no reason that one application cannot be made to serve for everything. Computerisation should have facilitated the implementation of a more efficient system.

Given that everybody has a personal public service number, there is no reason that the process should be so difficult. A friend of mine who made the decision to become a carer in order to spend time with her father, who died of a brain haemorrhage, during the last ten weeks of his life did not apply for carer's benefit. The process was complex enough to make her decide that it was not worth her while to apply. When she returned to work, having coped with the bereavement, she decided not to revisit the issue by applying retrospectively.

The provisions of section 19 relate to agency workers. I must declare an interest in this regard because I work as a recruitment agent in Galway. In common with the majority of agencies, we have paid a stamp, for which we invoice the employer, for each person who has worked for our business during the past 30 years. Section 19 seeks to provide that the person who is liable to pay the wages or salary of the individual in respect of the work or service performed will be deemed to be the employer. As most individuals are paid by the agencies, I take it that the latter are deemed to be the employers. If I place a temporary worker whom I pay €400 per week in a position, I will invoice the client for that sum plus PRSI at 8% or 10%. As the economy worsens, the client's business may be liquidated and I will be left with a bad debt of between €5,000 and €6,000 – including my fees plus VAT of 21%. I must pay PRSI, PAYE – which I have deducted from the employee's wages – holiday entitlement and VAT, but I have no protection under company law as a preferred creditor in the area of wages. I am not referring to my margins, which are my business, but I am entitled to some protection in relation to the payment of the various taxes. I should not be exploited. My agency should not be exposed to losses which might put it out of business and result in the unemployment of a further 40 people.

This is not an issue for the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to address with the legislation before the House. However, as we make agencies more responsible in certain areas, problems will result from the lack of protection extended to them under company law. The issue should be addressed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Attorney General.

I thank the Minister for coming before the House for a debate to which I had looked forward. To Senator Brian Hayes I say that it is time to examine the future operation of the social welfare system. Now that he agrees with individualisation, we should use the opportunities the tax system provides to improve social welfare.

Mr. B. Hayes:

We always agreed with tax credits.

Ms Cox:

Those who are most in need should be the beneficiaries.

Mr. McCarthy:

I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and I extend the opportunity of political transition to Senator Cox who feels hard done by. She is welcome to take a seat on this side of the House.

Ms Cox:

I did not use the words "hard done by".

Mr. McCarthy:

That is the impression the Senator gave. When people speak with such passion and conviction, we read into what they say.

The budgets of the past six to seven years have reflected an economic buoyancy we had not experienced for quite some time. In the black days of the recession when money was scarce, young people flocked to ports and airports as the dole queues became increasingly longer. It was quite an experience in the 1990s to witness the upsurge in employment and genuine economic prosperity. A case has been made that the mismanagement of the national finances has led to the sharp decline in expenditure by this Administration. In place of "mismanagement" I would use the term "fiscal rectitude". Fiscal rectitude took on a life of its own in recent years, largely as a phenomenon created by the Minister for Finance. As predicted, fiscal rectitude has ensured that in the downturn it is the least well off who have suffered the most. This state of affairs is reflected in a budget that does very little for people on low incomes, for carers and for others on the verges of society.

The budget was roundly criticised and condemned by many people and organisations for its inequitable and unjust provisions, particularly in so far as they affect those to whom I have referred. The unemployed, the underprivileged and the socially excluded have not received a fair deal from the Government. When my former party leader, Deputy Quinn, was Minister for Finance in 1996, Deputy McCreevy told him that when cutbacks in spending were needed it was the poor who would suffer most. This individual has shown his commitment to that principle as Minister for Finance.

Ms Cox:

By how much did Deputy Quinn increase social welfare provision that year?

Mr. B. Hayes:

The difference is that people could afford to buy bread then.

Mr. McCarthy:

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs has outlined in great detail the effect of this blatant disregard for those who are worst off. I acknowledge the detail in the context of the difficulties some of us would have had in sifting through and comparing various figures. I commend the Minister for doing it for us. I hope it is a trait she will not lose during her term of office.

Ms Coughlan:

In other words, I made the Senator's speech for him.

Mr. McCarthy:

I expect things to deteriorate over the coming years. When the national finances take a turn for the worse through the actions of the apostle of fiscal rectitude, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, the poorest will be hit. I sympathise with the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, as I would with any Cabinet Minister who has to ask the Minister for Finance for money for his or her Department. As evidenced by the now defunct national health strategy, it did not do the Minister for Health and Children much good when he made a convincing case to the Minister for Finance to part with money and stop being so miserable with his allocations. Organisations such as CORI and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and those who care for people in need are not being spoken for at the Cabinet table.

The dental dispute lasted for about two years during which PRSI contributors were unable to avail of treatment. In fairness to the Minister, she brought the dispute to a conclusion. Those most affected by it now find that essential and necessary dental treatment is costing a lot more. In some cases the cost of fillings has trebled. The high cost of living is hitting every household.

The Bill provides for social welfare increases which are a pittance and paltry in the extreme. An unemployed person will receive a real increase of 30 cent per week. An unemployed couple with one child will be given 25 cent extra per week. The child benefit gain works out at about 54 cent per week. The increases are being nullified by the rate of domestic inflation.

The Government gave a commitment over a three year programme to increase child benefit but only delivered on one quarter of the amount. It had been one of the many boasts of previous Ministers and was bandied about in the Government's election manifesto. This promise has been broken already and with a great degree of speed. I wonder if other promises will be broken. When it is decided to do a U-turn, is any thought given to those who will be most affected by such decisions?

We have become more aware of pensions, including private pension schemes. One of the benefits of the Celtic tiger era was that people could afford to make provision for private pensions. The Minister for Finance told us repeatedly about the good state of pensions. The old age pension is now a smaller percentage of the average industrial wage than in the 1970s. This statistic must cause us to wonder what happened when things were going well. I know that this annoys Senator Cox, in particular.

Mr. B. Hayes:

That is because she is worried about her pension.

Mr. McCarthy:

The Government has been reckless. It is a shame that a Government Senator would defend this. In fairness to other Senators, they may have decided not to come into the House for this debate but I hand it to Senator Cox for being brazen in her defence of the Government. The figures spell out the reality. What happened to the money? What happened to the Celtic tiger?

Mary Coughlan:

This debate should have been held this morning. The Senator is under an illusion.

Mr. McCarthy:

Why did she not cry and shout for the people about whom we are talking in the context of this Bill?

The rate of domestic inflation is now double the EU average. This achievement is the sole responsibility of the apostle of fiscal rectitude, the person responsible for the mismanagement of the country's funds, the Minister for Finance. The net effect is that the social welfare increases are completely obliterated by the rate of domestic inflation.

Ms Cox:

A sum of €10 billion in 2003.

Mr. McCarthy:

I did not interrupt the fair-haired Senator from Galway. I expect the same treatment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

Please allow the Senator to continue without interruption.

Mr. McCarthy:

The changes made by the Government to the rent supplement are a crude act which has obliterated the increases. There are about 50,000 carers who are being consistently neglected by the Government. They are providing an invaluable service but their efforts and dedication have not been recognised by the Minister for Finance in his successive budgets. There is an additional €7 per week for carers under 66 years. The weekly income disregard is €19 under the carer's allowance scheme. The income per week threshold is €150 for those in receipt of carer's benefit, for those who wish to engage in limited self-employment. That is not good enough. My party has consistently proposed the abolition of the means test for carer's allowance.

Ms Cox:

We could then give Michael Smurfit a carer's allowance. Deputy Michael Woods was the Fianna Fáil Minister who introduced the allowance.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

Please refrain, Senator Cox.

Mr. McCarthy:

Whether in its present format or previous incarnation the Government has consistently neglected carers.

Mary Coughlan:

We were not champagne socialists.

Mr. B. Hayes:

The Government were champagne republicans, which is even worse.

Mr. McCarthy:

This neglect is indefensible. The Government must realise that dead horses cannot be flogged. Carers are providing an invaluable service for society.

Mr. B. Hayes:

Hear, hear.

Mr. McCarthy:

While I acknowledge that the Minister is constrained by funding restrictions and the problem of changing schemes and introducing new measures which might impact on the administrative structure of the Department, I urge her to examine these requests and abolish the means test for carers.

There was a commitment to poverty-proofing in the revised national anti-poverty strategy. This meant that policy proposals would be analysed to see how they would affect the poor. The recent Budget Statement sets out the extent to which the Department of Finance has applied the poverty-proofing process to the budget. The Department is at best ambiguous about the process and misleading in the way it reports on it. The Department asserts that the analysis of poverty-proofing applies to the social welfare and income tax changes only. However, when referring to tax changes in general rather than income tax only, it asserts that the analysis "reflects the highly progressive nature of Budget 2003, which sees those depending on welfare getting the greatest gain".

Mr. Kenneally:

Listening to Senator McCarthy, one would find it difficult to fathom how our party won four times as many seats as his in the last general election.

Mr. McCarthy:

The difference is that we told the truth.

Mr. Kenneally:

The people are not fools and they know on which side their bread is buttered.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and congratulate her on the excellent job she has been doing since taking up office last year. Without any reflection on her predecessors, she is like a breath of fresh air in a Department which gives little scope for inventiveness or initiative. She has clearly indicated that she has her finger well and truly on the pulse of the nation. It is obvious she has brought to the Department the wealth of knowledge she has gained at the coalface of constituency work. I am aware of her weekly advice column in the provincial press. She seeks to get the information to the people through one of the most effective means possible, namely, local newspapers, which are so beloved by everyone.

The Minister has some sympathy with my views in regard to a favourite subject of mine, the carer's allowance, to which Senator McCarthy referred. She indicated this in a previous debate on social welfare in the House. Carers have been ignored for many years and their work has gone unrecognised by all levels of officialdom. Thankfully, the situation has improved immeasurably in recent times. I am still of the view, however, that carer's allowance should be paid to everyone who fulfils that role, regardless of their circumstances. It is a recognition of difficult and necessary work carried out by such people and of the saving to the State.

I realise the Minister does not currently have a budget for this expenditure. Neither is it her sole preserve as it impinges on the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Children. Carers' work saves the State a huge amount each year. However, this does not appear to be recognised, acknowledged or even properly quantified. It could be argued that we should be taking care of the elderly and the disabled, regardless of the circumstances, and that we should not have to be paid to do so. Naturally, people would be more likely to undertake the work if there is a financial incentive and if it benefits the State.

The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, is well aware of the pressures – not only financial, but also in terms of accommodation – on the health service. The Minister for Health and Children is also aware of the number of beds taken up by people who could and should be cared for at a less intensive level than in hospital, which would free up resources for more appropriate and urgent purposes. This could be achieved by moving some patients to nursing homes at half the cost or moving them back to their own homes, or those of relatives, at very little cost compared to the expense of hospital beds. The carer's allowance has the potential to solve a significant part of the hospital accommodation problem. One reason it might not have been implemented is the necessity for cross-Department co-operation.

The extra expenditure for the Department of Social and Family Affairs necessitated by the expansion of the scheme can be made available through savings in the Department of Health and Children. I urge the Minister to look closely at the advantages it could bring to the elderly and those with disabilities, as well as to the Exchequer and the health services. It will take some vision to achieve this and I believe the Minister is the right person to do the job. Has a study has been carried out to establish the cost of extending the carer's allowance across the board, including the benefits that would accrue to the State through savings in the Department of Health and Children?

In common with a number of Members of the Oireachtas and many people throughout the country, I was disappointed that the student summer jobs scheme was abolished. In recent years the numbers participating in the scheme have fallen sharply, mainly because there was plenty of well paid employment available elsewhere. Regardless of whether it was the original intention, there were two main beneficiaries of the scheme, namely, the students and the sponsoring bodies. While these were mainly voluntary organisations, they were always groups who had some benefit to pass on to the community.

A major summer camp was developed in my constituency with the resources made available through the scheme. The full benefit of the subvention was channelled back to the children and families in reduced costs for the camp. This meant that people of little means could send their children to the camp. Children of the Traveller community were accommodated as well as those with intellectual disabilities. This is just one of many schemes and services throughout the country which will be hard hit this year. Funding is now more difficult and the benefits will not reach so far this year, which is regrettable. I ask the Minister, notwithstanding the fact that she has informed the participating sponsors from last year of the discontinuation of the scheme, to reconsider the matter in a sympathetic way. The cost could not have been that great, yet the benefits for the students, sponsors and the community at large were great.

I realise that the community employment scheme does not fall within the Minister's remit. However, it is not that far removed in that many of the beneficiaries of the CE schemes were recipients of social assistance in one form or another. The progressive scaling back of the scheme has hit the voluntary sector hard. Together with the abolition of the student summer jobs scheme, it takes the backbone out of many needy and beneficial initiatives. I ask the Minister to look again at her own scheme and perhaps consult with her colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to reinstate and reinvigorate the community employment schemes.

To return to the Bill, I congratulate the Minister on the increases granted to child benefit recipients. An increase of €8 each for the first and second child, together with an increase of €10 each for third and fourth children, is very significant. It is of great practical help in rearing children. This brings the benefit for four children to €565 a month, a generous allowance by any standards. The fact that it is paid directly to the mother in most cases is of major benefit. I urge the Minister to maintain her excellent record in this regard in the future. I realise that we cannot indefinitely give increases of this magnitude. Having reached the required level to deal with the practical difficulties of expensive child care, it should be possible to maintain payments at the required level.

When I discussed this matter with a constituent who has not been eligible for child benefit for a decade or more, he was surprised and pleased to note the huge strides made in recent years in terms of bringing these payments up to acceptable levels. He contrasted the current situation to that of the 1980s Fine Gael-Labour coalition which not only failed to adequately maintain the child benefit allowance at the time, but also removed the tax free allowances which were of major benefit to parents. He lamented the fact that he is not rearing his children in the current child benefit regime. He felt life is currently considerably easier financially than in the cash-strapped days of the coalition Government to which I refer.

I thank the Minister for eliminating an anomaly which has been to the disadvantage of some pension recipients. The current six weeks payment after death does not apply to a spouse with a pension or allowance in his or her own right. This has been eliminated under section 7. It is an indication that the Minister is willing to effect improvements for the benefit of small minorities of disadvantaged people.

I have been concerned for some time about the treatment of certain recipients who qualify for disability benefit and invalidity pension. I have come across countless recipients who have had their medical condition certified by one or, perhaps, two consultants – after a great deal of examination and numerous visits to them and their GPs – only to have it overturned after a sometimes cursory examination by the medical examiners retained by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. To add insult to injury, the attitude of some of the medical examiners is appalling and not what is expected of a public servant. This is totally unacceptable. I know from the Minister's record that she would be the first to acknowledge that the day when this behaviour might be acceptable is long gone. On behalf of a humiliated and suffering segment of social welfare recipients, I plead with her to issue clear guidelines on the kind of behaviour that is and is not acceptable in this area of her Department. An improvement in this alone would be a monument to her compassion and understanding of the difficulties encountered by these recipients of her Department's allowances. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bradford:

I also welcome the Minister and wish her well in her ongoing work. I congratulate her on her appointment. I read her regular dispatches across a wide range of local newspapers and hope her weekly exercises in publicity will be matched by resources for those who depend on her Department on a weekly basis.

Given our system of politics, most Members of the Oireachtas meet their constituents on a regular basis, especially those with difficulties and queries. This gives us an in-depth knowledge of how the social welfare system is working. Every politician is, to some degree, an expert on the rules of the system and we can all make arguments to the Minister on changes and improvements. My colleague, Senator Brian Hayes, and others have addressed the issue of the social welfare increases and the rate of inflation, on which I will not elaborate.

I concur with Senator Kenneally's comments on the carer's allowance scheme. This issue has been raised in every social welfare datable in which I have participated over the past ten to 12 years. While everybody welcomes it, there is a widespread view that it does not go far enough.

The Minister for Health and Children and his predecessors have had to address a number of crises regarding the care of the elderly and doubtless his successor will face similar ones. If properly funded, the carer's allowance and benefit schemes could achieve great results in this area. The solution to the problem is not to confine the elderly to nursing homes. We should attempt to provide a structure where the greatest possible number can be looked after in their home with the help of their family or immediate neighbours. The carer's allowance and benefit schemes can play a major role in this.

While I appreciate the Minister's resources are limited, I am disappointed no significant improvement has been made to these schemes in recent years. The change to the means testing limits has not resulted in a significant increase in the number of carers in receipt of the allowance or benefit. I understand approximately 25,000 are in receipt of a carer's allowance, while the number of carers is close to 100,000. Every elderly person forced to move to a private nursing home or district hospital because of the lack of local or domestic care costs the Department of Health and Children far more than the cost of providing a carer's allowance for a family member or neighbour.

I hope the Minister will place an overhaul of the schemes at the top of her agenda. While the structure may to some extent be satisfactory, there is a need to ensure it is extended to all those who provide a level of care for their elderly relations and that elderly people will be cared for at home rather than in a hospital or private nursing home. This will require extra resources. It is a matter of choice. However, it must be recognised that exceptionally good value is obtained for every €1 of taxpayer's money spent on the carer's allowance or benefit. The Minister must divert far more resources to the schemes in an attempt to ensure that each year during her tenure in office the means testing limits are improved and there is a greater uptake in the number of recipients. It is not good enough that if at least 100,000 are providing care on a weekly basis, much of it full-time, only one quarter are in receipt of some kind of carer's payment.

The question of medical examinations for disability allowance or invalidity pension is another preoccupation raised at the time of the annual Social Welfare Bill. I regularly encounter large numbers of cases involving people who are unable to work and in receipt of disability benefit for years but are refused invalidity pensions. They are told by the Department that they are not permanently unfit for work. On some occasions medical officers deal with them in a manner that suggests they would be out of pocket if an invalidity pension was payable.

When a person has been out of work for four or five years and has been in receipt of disability benefit for that period, it is extraordinary that in some cases the Department is unwilling to certify that he or she is unfit for work and thereby deny him or her an invalidity pension. The additional cost to it and the taxpayer of the payment of an invalidity pension over a weekly disability benefit is modest. While there are additional advantages attaching to the pension such as free travel and electricity, much misery is being created in an attempt to save a little. I ask the Minister to ensure medical referees and inspectors look more favourably on applicants for invalidity pension where they have been long-term recipients of disability benefit.

The question of farm assist is close to the heart of the Cathaoirleach, who I hope will not be in need of the benefit. The Minister spoke of the need for members of the farming community to contact their local social welfare office if they have problem. I welcome her assurance that their claims and problems will be dealt with in a confidential and discreet manner. Such an approach is necessary.

Despite what commentators like to portray, the majority of small farmers do not want to be seen as recipients of social welfare. The take-up of social welfare payments by farmers is probably significantly lower than the numbers who should be in receipt of farm assist. While I compliment the Minister on her efforts in regard to advertising benefits in the press, her weekly message to the nation, via local newspapers, would need to be stepped up in regard to this programme, especially at a time when agriculture is in crisis. If we are to provide assistance and for income maintenance through farm assist, we must ensure every possible recipient takes up the scheme. I ask the Minister to give this issue further attention.

There are many other issues we could address. Social welfare is a minefield in regard to queries, anomalies and problems which we will keep bringing to the Minister's attention. Despite her additional resources, every cent and more will be needed. I wish her well in her endeavours to try to loosen the purse strings of the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Kitt:

I welcome the Minister and thank her for what she has said. I congratulate her also on the announcement made in the previous Bill and compliment her, in particular, on the attention she has given to helping the elderly, widows and widowers and those in receipt of child benefit.

Other Senators have spoken about the increase in carer's allowance which is very welcome. The respite care grant has gone up by €100 in the budget. The same has been done in regard to the income disregard. I accept the point made by Senator Bradford. We do not want a situation where everybody ends up in a nursing home. Given that there has been an increase in payment rates for nursing home care, we must do our best to improve the carer's allowance. Like other Senators, I would like to see no means test for carers but know from previous argument that a major cost would be involved. It is good to see that the income disregard has been increased and I hope we will move towards a situation where we will have no means test. People have been pointing to the cost of nursing home care and the fact that the subvention has increased. An increase in payment for carers would help to level the playing field.

The respite care grant increase is also welcome. The Minister mentioned that it would rise to €735 later this year and that there would be an increased grant where someone was looking after more than one person. The carer's benefit scheme to which Senator Cox referred is one of great imagination and will prove of great benefit in the years ahead. People have been learning about it in recent years. I ask the Minister to see to it that any red tape in regard to it is done away with.

The Minister spoke about the increases for qualifying children which will now be extended to recipients of short-term benefits such as disability benefit, injury benefit, health and safety benefit, unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. This is welcome. She is also moving on the recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare in regard to the benefit and privilege clause in the assessment of means for those looking for unemployment assistance or pre-retirement allowance. She said that this would start for those aged 29 years or over. This is a great step on which I hope we will build further. There are certainly some imaginative steps in the Bill and I hope we will see even more improvements in the months and years ahead.

One of the issues referred to by the Minister in the previous Bill was the matter of assistance for those returning to school, education or work. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has shown in recent years that great improvements can be made in those schemes. We saw the benefit in the literature we received from the Minister for this year. Mature students get great help from such schemes to return to education. Galway university was a little disappointed by the change in the back-to-education allowance scheme for third level postgraduate students. The university is disappointed that summer payments have ended for allowance recipients. I ask the Minister to examine this issue. She has received correspondence from the NUIG and probably other universities about the scheme. Postgraduate students obviously believe their case should be re-examined. The weekly allowance they receive is €124.80, plus an annual book allowance of €254. Students entered the programme on the understanding that they would be able to complete their postgraduate degree under the scheme. Now they believe they may not obtain their full qualification because they may not have the resources to finish the course. That is disappointing.

Senator Kenneally mentioned the student summer jobs scheme which has been of great benefit, particularly in the environmental area. Now that it is gone something else should be put in its place. I think particularly of work done under FÁS which we have been told cannot be done. Students participating in summer schemes often did work with the tidy towns committees or community councils which used the scheme to get students to carry out necessary work. Something should be put in place through FÁS to replace it. The Minister should raise the issue with the Tánaiste.

Another scheme which needs to be mentioned is farm assist to which Senator Bradford referred. Last year was a difficult one for agriculture. The weather played a role in making life difficult. The Minister has met farming organisations on the issue. In every budget in recent years a certain advantage has been given to recipients of unemployment assistance who have farms. The income disregard is an important element of the schemes. I am glad the Minister has continued her discussions with farming organisations about improvements that can be made. Of all schemes, this is the one in place for farmers. We may go to the European Union and look for help but if it is European policy not to give such help, we will not get it. We can have our own scheme such as farm assist to ensure payments are made to farmers who have fallen on hard times.

The issue of appeals does not fall within the Minister's remit but she is the policy maker. There is a delay in having appeals heard and decisions made. The Minister spoke earlier this year about making funding of €86,000 available to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to reconvene the trade union panel of social welfare appeal assessors and towards the running of the welfare rights unit. I welcome the news that funding is being made available for that purpose. However, it raises questions about the delays in hearing appeals and making decisions.

I would welcome it if the Minister could obtain funding for more appeals officers. We are lucky to have good information on social welfare entitlements and benefits. We are told quickly at local level and by the offices with which we deal – those with which I am in contact are in Galway, Tuam, Loughrea, Ballinasloe or Athlone – about what is happening. I know the appeals office is independent, but it can be slow to deal with appeals. Members cannot raise too many questions about that on the Adjournment here or on Question Time in the Lower House, although we are trying to get results and information for our constituents. I hope the Minister examines that issue.

I congratulate the Minister on the good work she has done in a short period. She has used her experience and brought two Social Welfare Bills before the House this year.

Mr. U. Burke:

I welcome the Minister and wish her well in her work. It is a great privilege to be a Minister at any time, but it is particularly nice to be the Minister for Social and Family Affairs in good times when money is readily available in the economy. It is difficult to provide the necessary funding to give everyone a good standard of living.

This morning I asked the Leader, Senator O'Rourke, to request the Minister to come before the House to discuss the back to education allowance as a matter of urgency. There are many schemes in the Department which support the disadvantaged. However, the decision to withdraw the back to education allowance from those on summer holidays and from postgraduates was a retrograde step. Senator Kitt also referred to this issue. I appeal to the Minister to address the difficulty caused by that decision. The back to education allowance gave many people an opportunity of which they did not think they would be able to avail. Many of them have embarked on studies which have given them great pleasure and satisfaction because of their mature attitude and talents.

On Friday evening last, I met a married man of 47 years of age who has eight children. He left national school when he was 14 years old because his father died. He had a small farm of approximately 35 acres in the west which was poorly resourced. He found it difficult to make ends meet. He had an off-farm job for a few years, which he lost due to bad business circumstances. He joined a FÁS scheme and was re-employed in the community, which gave him a sense of responsibility. He started a project which led him to a third level institution. From the day he entered that institution, he has been successful. He now has a status in the community of which he dared not dream in the past. He was disgusted when he learned that, from early June, he will not have the support mechanism of the back to education allowance for himself and his family. He is also annoyed that he will not be able to continue in the postgraduate scheme. It is a retrograde step that a person of his age and circumstances, who has been through a great deal, may have to leave without his final qualifications. That is one example of the many of which I am aware.

Last year, 3,679 people received the allowance. That is a small number. It is petty to attack this group and to withdraw that support. Resources should be found for the scheme and the Minister should reassess this decision, which has led to great uncertainty, at the earliest possible opportunity. Many students are despondent because having been encouraged to go back to education in better times, they now feel unwanted. They are disadvantaged because resources cannot be found. It is a tragedy, but I hope the Minister will do something about it.

I want to bring to the Minister's attention a matter which should not be an issue in the Department. The social welfare officers we contact by telephone are, in so far as is possible, courteous, helpful and understanding. They try to assist people who have difficulty applying for allowances. However, the field officers who go out into the community and carry out reviews are callous. I can provide the Minister with examples, if she so wishes, which can be checked out. They seem to be on a mission to take as many people as possible out of the schemes. That is a tragedy and it contrasts with what happens in the social welfare offices and with the assistance given by other social welfare officers.

When I was a Member of the Lower House, I gave the example of cases in Gort, County Galway, where people were asked to meet the social welfare appeals officer who wanted to review their applications. They were asked to wait in the lobby of a hotel, which was the most public area that could be found, despite the fact there were two social welfare offices available in which the work could be done in private. Everyone else in the hotel knew why these people were present when the officers called them. It is time to respect people's privacy and dignity. Despite the fact that they must undergo a public application process, they are entitled to some degree of privacy. The example to which I refer is not an irregular occurrence. Further training may be necessary and I hope that appeals officers who review people's applications will do so with the greatest degree of sensitivity. Social welfare applicants are sensitive and highly dependent on State support. That anyone should be embarrassed is simply not good enough.

I endorse the comments of many Senators on the issue of disability and the apparent contradiction in opinion between medical referees and the consultants and medical practitioners who have been dealing with particular applicants and know they are not fit to resume work. I mentioned a case to the Minister last week, the details of which I shall forward to her. There is a need for equality between medical practitioners, on the one hand, and medical referees, on the other. If a person is able to stand, he or she is considered fit to work, the case is dismissed and he or she is denied the allowance. I ask the Minister to ensure that there are no contradictions between medical referees, people representing the Department of Social and Family Affairs and an applicant's medical practitioners. I also ask her to review the position as soon as possible.

Mr. Daly:

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and wish her every success in her work. With her experience and background she will make a major contribution to the overall development of social welfare services. I know from the short period I spent in that office that she has available to her the advice of some very professional personnel who have a detailed knowledge of the issues involved and how to deal with them. I reject any suggestion that the officers of the Department of Social and Family Affairs in any of the areas I have dealt with were callous and I have been a Member for over 30 years.

Perhaps one of the most innovative changes in the welfare area in recent years was the regionalisation of services. Information is now readily available in regional offices. I wish to record my appreciation of the work of the regional office in Ennis and the dedication of its personnel. The regional offices have taken a huge volume of work off Oireachtas Members because of the manner in which they deal with the general public. That is a welcome development.

I congratulate the Minister on extending the respite care grant which has been of enormous benefit to those who receive it. The Bill provides for additional finances for about 25,000 people. I pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the carer's organisation, the Soroptimists in Clare.

There are some areas in need of special attention which may be dealt with by the Minister who has some overall responsibility for certain of the activities of the Ministers of State and others with, for example, responsibility for children. There is a necessity to deal effectively with the children on the streets of this city who sleep rough. A few yards from the House, children of 12 and 13 years of age are on the streets seeking charity and assistance from passers-by. While this problem may impinge on other areas of responsibility under Departments, it is a serious issue and one that needs to be tackled. The Government took an initiative earlier in the year which indicated the problem would be removed from the streets, but it is not working successfully. The wealthiest cities of the world have failed to deal with this issue. I am not sure it is entirely related to contributions. The reality is that parents are in receipt of benefit for those children who are on the street with baskets and boxes seeking funding and sleeping rough. This issues needs to be tacked soon.

It is equally important to take care of the elderly in our community. In rural areas, old people still live in isolated houses without proper sanitary services and with poor facilities. I compliment the Department, the health boards and the local authorities on the work being done in providing for elderly disabled persons and elderly persons living alone, many of whom are without basic facilities and some have poor access to their homes. I ask to the Minister to look at this area because she has available to her, from her Department's records and the regional officers, information regarding the number and the location of elderly persons living alone in isolated areas. In some respects they suffer the disadvantage of not having available to them the basic requirements to live in decent comfort.

I am pleased the Minister made improvements to the after death arrangements, although it will not be any benefit to those who have already died. An issue I have raised on a number of occasions is that in some cases where overpayments were made to people who have died, their relatives still receive demands for outstanding amounts paid because their true income did not come to light until they died. The relatives are left with fairly substantial bills. This problem is common to the broad area of payments from small farmers' assistance to pensions. In all the cases of which I am aware, the relatives were unaware that overpayments were being made. Some provision is being made to deal with this issue and I hope it will be expanded in such a way as to deal with the large number of overpayments especially in respect of small farmers' assistance. Relatives who were unaware that this had happened are left with fairly substantial bills.

One of the successes of the Department of Social and Family Affairs in recent years has been the partnership that has developed between it and the voluntary organisations. I recall meeting the various voluntary organisations that made pre-budget submissions and being involved in discussions at ministerial level. This was a most enlightening and useful experience. Sometimes one found there was duplication of work between different organisations that could be avoided. Given that resources will be scarce for the foreseeable future, duplication of services and payments must be avoided and instead must be streamlined in such a way as to get money to the people who need it. Such streamlining would prevent much wasteful duplication of services and the excessive waste of human and financial resources should be looked at.

In this regard, I compliment Fr. Seán Healy who has been to the forefront in advancing the cause of the less well off. In recent days he has indicated that CORI will continue to be part of the new national agreement. It would be damaging for those who have been represented by Fr. Seán Healy and other organisations acting on behalf of the disadvantaged, if those organisations did not get involved with the national partnership and work with employers, unions, the Government and farmers to put a new agreement in place. It is imperative such organisations form a partnership with the Government.

It would be useful to have regular, organised discussions with the voluntary organisations rather than having one pre-budget meeting. In that way, we could build in their experiences and views on overall policies at departmental level. I know the Minister will not be found wanting in that regard because she brings with her vast experience in this area. I do not think there is anyone who has the same broad range of experience which could be brought to bear in framing a new streamlined package which will ensure the less well-off sections of our community are cared for.

We must also care for deprived children – whether they are deprived is often debatable. It is not desirable that we have children seeking public support on the streets at night time and we are relying on voluntary organisations to care for them. I compliment those who go out night and assist them. Perhaps the Department could become involved with such organisations to try to deal with this problem which is quite significant in Dublin.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mary Coughlan):

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.

Mr. U. Burke:

This relates to disadvantaged people.

Mary Coughlan:

I appreciate that. I have looked at the permutations and the statistics on the second and third level options. The estimated cost for this year is €29.6 million for the entire provision at second and third level. In the main, people were coming from the live register – some were being paid unemployment benefit or assistance while others were in receipt of invalidity benefit. The total number on the back to education allowance for 2002 to 2003 is 6,473 and they have not been affected.

I see merit in what the Senator says. The target has always been that a primary degree would be the initial step from which a person would move into employment. One of the reasons this programme was launched was because we had huge concerns about literacy and the difficulties that people faced without formal educational achievements. The target was to get people through the educational process at second level initially and for them to then progress to third level, which was seen as the platform at which a person could move into employment. Of those, some have moved to postgraduate study.

I have listened to the arguments. The matter will be raised in the Dáil on Thursday next by way of parliamentary question. The cost is something which, unfortunately, I cannot carry this year. If I was to allow another group of postgraduate students to commence courses in September, it would cost approximately €4 million. However, I will keep this matter under review and will meet the relevant organisations. University College Galway, in particular, has been quite vociferous in its representations – as would be becoming of the relevant gentleman.

Mr. U. Burke:

That reflects the degree of disadvantage.

Mary Coughlan:

Coming from the west, I appreciate that. When the educational qualifications and attainments are considered, we would have concerns in regard to the west, the south-east and parts of Tipperary. In those areas, many people have not gone into third level education. This scheme has been helpful in getting people into third level and the argument has been cogently put that the primary three or four year degree has been a platform for many to progress from education to work. If people believe a postgraduate degree is important or necessary, they can do it in the context of also having the opportunity to work. I appreciate what Senators have said and will keep the matter under review.

Ms Cox:

Could the small sum of €4 million not be taken from the national training and development fund and put into the Minister's scheme? It should be investigated.

Mary Coughlan:

Yes, I can certainly do that in the context of delivery.

Is léir go bhfuil go leor le déanamh ag gach éinne agus is tús maith leath na hoibre. Tá a fhios agam go mbeidh díospóireacht fada againn maidin amárach maidir leis an Bhille seo. Is é tuairim an Rialtais ná go bhfuil tacaíocht iomlán tabhartha ó 1997 go dtí daoine a bhfuil míbhuntáistí acu, mar shampla pinsinéirí. Tá an chéad chéim de polasaithe an Rialtais le feiceáil sa Bhille seo. Tá súil agam, ag eirí as an cúig bhliain a bheidh agam sa Roinn, le cúnamh Dé, go mbeidh an Rialtas ábalta na polasaithe seo a chuir i gcrích. Nuair a smaoinaíonn duine ar an méid atá déanta cheana agus an méid atá le déanamh, beidh an tacaíocht soiléir le feiceáil nuair atá téarma an Rialtais críochnaithe. Gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí uilig.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26 March 2003.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Kitt: At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 26 March 2003.