The Minister wishes to clarify a matter.
Social Welfare Bill, 2000: Committee Stage (Resumed).
I wish to clarify a figure I gave yesterday in relation to a proposal by Deputies O'Keeffe and McGrath. It was based on a figure of 200,000. I corrected myself because I knew that figure was wrong. It depends on what is meant by "up to five". Does five and under mean the sixth birthday? In any event, amendment No. 11 involved an increase to £25 per week for children under five years of age. The figure I gave was a total of £257 million. This should have been £297 million.
Where did the Minister get that? He had a figure of £150 million for the under fives and £107 million for the others.
It was £257 million. It should be £297 million. The extra was because there was a 50,000 difference in the two figures. It was £190 million and £107 million.
It was £107 million for the over fives and £190 million instead of £150 million for the under fives.
Yes. Deputy McGrath mentioned a figure indicating that child benefit represented the sole income of 58% of mothers receiving the payment. This figure, I understand, is based on a sample survey undertaken in 1989 by David Rothman for the Combat Poverty Agency's publication "Income Distribution within Irish Households". A new survey would be required to get an update of this position but it would now be less than 58% given the huge increase in participation of women in the workforce. The figures are dramatic. Even in the past two years, the figures for female participation rose substantially. The 1989 figures are out of date.
Will there be another survey?
The Combat Poverty Agency carried out that survey. It is probably something we could consider but there are no plans to do so at present.
Can I refer to the increased figure of £190 million for the £25 per week payment for children under five? Is that assessed on the basis of making the payment up to the child's sixth birthday?
Yes. It is based on age under five years.
I did an assessment——
I will give the Deputy the figures. The number of children under age five is 254,000; paid at the lower rate, 204,000; paid at the higher rate, 50,000. The cost of 204,000 at £15 extra multiplied by 52 is £159 million and 50,000 at £13 multiplied by 52 is £31.2 million. The total is £190.3 million. The number of children aged over five is 798,000; paid at the lower rate, 642,000; paid at the higher rate, 156,000. Additional cost of 642,000 at £10.50 multiplied by 12 is £80.9 million and 156,000 at £14 multiplied by 12 is £26.2 million. The total is £107.1 million.
Does the figure of £190 million cover up to the sixth birthday or up to the fifth birthday?
Up to the fifth birthday.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 7, subsection (1), to delete lines 28 to 31 and substitute the following:
" '(aa) where in any contribution week a payment of not more than £226 per week (or the equivalent thereof in respect of an employed contributor remunerated otherwise than on a weekly basis) is made to or for the benefit of an employed contributor in respect of reckonable earnings of that contributor relating to an employment, a contribution shall not be payable by that employed contributor in respect of those earnings from that employment.’,”.
This is a technical amendment to Section 8 (1) (a). Its purpose is to ensure that the exemption will apply on a proportionate basis to those people who are paid otherwise than on a weekly basis. The amendment also provides that where a person is in more than one employment concurrently, the exemption will apply separately to each employment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This section refers to contributions, insurance, PRSI payments. On insurance contributions, as I understand it, paying PRSI gives a person certain entitlements. In effect, it is in an insurance scheme which gives entitlements. For example, if a man dies during his working life his widow can avail of a widow's contributory pension based on his insurance contributions. That is the whole nature of it. There is a strange situation operating within the Department with which I am not happy. It relates to a case I came across recently but it has general application as well. A man died quite tragically and his widow was entitled to a widow's contributory pension. Three months after the death the matter has been resolved. His widow was also working and paying stamps in her own right. At the time of the death she was out of work on a doctor's certificate and received disability benefit for six weeks. She then returned to work and to paying PRSI. When she got her widow's pension a figure was disallowed out of it as a repayment of the disability benefit she had received. I could not understand this because the late husband had made the contributions that entitled her to the pension and she had made the contributions that entitled her to disability benefit if the need arose. Yet, when she came to drawing those, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs said she could not draw the two. All she was entitled to on the basis of her own payments, even though she had 12 or 14 years' payments accumulated, was half the personal rate. Out of arrears of widow's pension, to which she was entitled, half was clawed back. That strikes me as most unfair and unjust and I hope some of my colleagues will support me on this. If a person contributes to a pension scheme, the whole nature of it is that he or she can draw on it when it is needed. It is a gross injustice to that person. There are similar cases the details of which I cannot recall at present.
This brings into question the whole system of making contributions and being able to draw on them. There is a rule to the effect that one cannot have two pensions from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. However, that was a case of a widow getting a pension based on her husband's contributions and disability benefit based on her own payments. They were two separate insurance schemes, but when it came to drawing on them, she could not do that. It raises questions about the whole nature of contributions. Perhaps it is appropriate at this stage for us to discuss it. I am sure other Members have come across similar cases. Will the Minister respond? I would like to see that issue reviewed because the very nature of the difficulty that brought about this situation was tragic. To claw back the few pounds in this sad and tragic situation was, to put it mildly, putting the boot in where it was not warranted. I would appreciate if we could look at that. Perhaps other Members have views on this issue.
In support of my colleague, we have a fairly inflexible rule that two payments cannot be made to the same person from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. I have always been against that rule in so far as it applies to the carer's allowance. The situation will be even worse when carer's benefit is introduced. I do not agree that it is a rule that should be written in stone. It is one on which I will be pushing for a recommendation in the context of this Bill but also from the committee in the coming year. It can give rise to great injustice. It is not exactly on all fours with the point raised by my colleague, Deputy McGrath, in that he is talking about a situation where there are two streams of insurance payments accepted from both spouses. What are those payments supposed to bring? In relation to the carer's allowance, we are talking about a non-insurance based payment. The point highlighted by Deputy McGrath does raise the question that if two streams of insurance payment are accepted why should there not be the possibility of two payments as a consequence. It is an issue the committee should look at if the Minister is not in a position to immediately change what seems to be an unfair situation.
I wish to raise a related matter under this heading. I was unable to frame an amendment on it. I received a number of submissions from pensioners complaining bitterly about the health levy in relation to pensioners, given that they do not pay PRSI. They complained that married couples were treated as if they were a single person. They also made the point that from April the income tax exemption limit for married couples is being increased to £15,000 but the health levy threshold will be increased to only £14,600. A pensioner, who is a constituent of my colleague, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, says that from July he will be worse off by £4.21 a week because of the health levy. He wonders whether there is anything the Minister can do about that. He is a former CIE employee, and his small pension increase will have the effect of pushing his weekly pension to a figure marginally above the threshold of £280. Consequently the full 2% health levy will once more be imposed. This is just one of about five or six such communications the Labour Party has received. Can anything be done in that regard?
There is another anomaly relating to contributions which affects women workers in particular. A group of women who came to see me had worked full-time in a supermarket for many years. When they went on part-time working, three days per week, they were entitled to unemployment benefit for the other days. Because they were working three days, they were entitled to 390 days' unemployment benefit. They were entitled to draw their three days unemployment benefit for 130 weeks, which is just over two years, and they continued to work part-time. When their unemployment benefit ran out, they felt they were entitled to continued unemployment benefit based on the three years PRSI contributions they had made as part-time workers. However, they were not entitled to any payments although they would have been if there was a substantial reduction in their wages.
Amendment No. 41 relates to this issue.
I will raise it on that amendment. It is the same point on contributions and whether they should be reckonable.
We all know the standard rule, but we do not know where it came from. Is there a difference between a contributory pension, as mentioned by Deputy McGrath, and a non-contributory pension?
It is a standard rule with social welfare as far back as the 1950s whereby people cannot receive two payments. There are some exceptions. One relates to widows where they can benefit because they can receive half the disability benefit on top of the widow's pension.
Is that £36 per week?
Yes. My understanding is that it is to encourage widows back into the workplace after their period of sickness or whatever. This issue comes up repeatedly. It boils down to the resources available. That people say there are two streams of insurance is not that relevant because social insurance is not like an ordinary insurance system under which a person makes contributions and then expects to benefit. People may not benefit from social insurance during their lives. They may die before they get a pension or avail of social welfare payments based on PRSI. Social insurance relates to social and solidarity and solidarity between generations. It is not just a simple matter of a person getting back whatever one pays into the scheme. It does not work like that.
The Minister is going down a road that he should move back from. What in effect he is saying is that PRSI contributions are a tax rather than anything else.
No, they are not a tax.
What the Minister is saying is that it is simply another tax rather than an insurance scheme.
It is a safety net. It does not necessarily follow that when a person pays PRSI he will get a benefit. That has always been the case.
If the man Deputy Broughan referred to is marginally over £280 he will not lose out, but he may not gain as a result of the changes. If he was to lose he would have to jump from £217 up to £280. I will check the matter out if the Deputy gives me the details of the case. I suspect it is somebody who will not gain because he may have been entitled to an increase and is moving from under £280, which is the new threshold, to more than £280.
With regard to Deputy Broughan's point, people can lose out because of minor matters. There is always the person who got an increase last year and once he goes over the threshold - admittedly the threshold has been changed - he must pay tax on the entire amount.
He will not lose money but he may not gain it either because of the change.
Many Members, like Deputy McGrath, made the point that PRSI used to mean pay related social insurance. It has been suggested that if payments are based on means, then people should be able to draw on their benefits on the same basis.
If that was the case, then a person who paid just ten years stamps would get a very small pension based on ten years contributions. The Commission on Social Welfare recommended that pay related benefits should be abolished and over time they have been phased out.
The reality is that the contributory old age pension is based on a person's record of stamps. It is graded depending on the number of stamps or averages a person has. The averages are pathetic.
There is almost no divergence as a result of my changes this year.
At the same time it is based on contributions made. Earlier a question was raised about widows receiving disability benefit for a short period. The Minister made the argument that it is seen as a possible discouragement to going back to work. This case certainly disproves the Minister's theory because the lady concerned drew disability for six weeks. It was eight weeks before her widow's pension was sorted out and she received a cheque.
Did she receive arrears?
Yes, but she was back at work for eight weeks before the widow's cheque came through. If this scheme was to encourage her to stay at home and not work then she would not have returned to work eight weeks ago. It was during that short period after the death in tragic circumstances, which spanned the Christmas period, that she received disability benefit. If a spouse in receipt of social welfare payments dies, payment continues for a further six weeks. If the same applied to disability benefit then this woman's payments would not have been stopped as she only took that period to deal with major difficulties. There is a case for a shortened period. The theory of contributions and drawing them down, irrespective of the fact that the Minister says a person cannot receive two benefits, should be examined, in particular for widow's pension and disability benefit. Will the Minister examine this matter?
If the Deputy gives me the details of the case I will examine them specifically and then the issue generally and will come back to him later.
Perhaps we should invite officials to meet us to deal with this section and Members could tease it out a bit more.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
This section comes into operation on 6 April because it involves additional payments into the greedy maw of the Exchequer. The contrast again is notable in relation to other sections, where increases do not come into effect until later in the year. It is worth noting that here again this distinction is being made by the Government, that despite all the money in the Exchequer, it still wants to take in extra money from 6 April but it is not prepared to pay increases from that date. I will not make an issue of it other than to comment that it is another example of the point we made yesterday about the failure of the Government to pay increases from April.
Has the Department carried out any research on the upper limits and the type of funding that could be garnered for the social insurance fund if they were significantly increased?
It is done every year through costings. The abolition of the ceilings and various other issues are sometimes discussed with the Department of Finance.
Does the Minister know what the figure would be for this year if there was no ceiling?
No. We can have the figures checked and forwarded to the Deputy. If the ceiling was to be abolished the accusation that PRSI is just a tax would have some validity.
All the parties are aware that there is a tranche of money in the social welfare reserve fund, for which the Minister will presumably be responsible. It is closely related to the pensions fund. Would it not be useful to consider a more inclusive insurance fund of the kind held by a number of our EU partners?
The Department looks at all these aspects, but it is interlinked with changes introduced in the budget and decisions made by the Government regarding increases in the threshold. That is looked at on a constant basis, but if the committee wishes to examine it further we can supply figures on what is available.
Some time ago I gave consideration to the effects of abolishing the ceiling. I understand it has been done in England. Is the Minister aware of that?
There is no employer's ceiling in England, but there is an employee's ceiling.
These moneys will be allocated to the social insurance fund. If I recall correctly, up to a few years ago that fund had to be supplemented by an annual subvention from the Exchequer, but it is now running a surplus. Who manages the surplus and are we getting the best investment advice? Does the Minister have an input?
Up to now the Department of Finance has had an input.
Is it the NTMA?
I think it is the NTMA, but under the new programme there is a proposal to set up a social insurance board. The management of that will be discussed with the social partners.
If this money is properly invested a good return can be made. Will the Minister indicate where the surplus is invested and what return has been made?
I have no responsibility in that regard, it is for the Minister for Finance.
Is it totally a matter for the Minister for Finance?
Yes. The Deputy should table questions to him.
If there is a decent surplus it should be properly invested. I will table questions on it and, perhaps, we should consider inviting the officials in the Department of Finance who deal with it to attend the committee.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 8, line 31, after "prescribed" to insert "(to include due regard for the structure of rural society)".
This arises from an interesting discussion we had with the Minister's officials on the issue of the nearby residency of carers. It seeks to insert the words "(to include due regard for the structure of rural society)" after the words "subject to the conditions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed" in page 8, line 31. I received a number of submissions on this, including a detailed one from my colleague, former Senator Townsend, when he complained about the failure to give a carer's allowance to many carers in counties Carlow and Kilkenny who live three or four miles from the person with disability.
There appears to be a case to answer here. A couple of months ago the Minister's officials told the committee that they interpreted the existing rules in as flexible and favourable a manner as possible. My constituency stretches approximately eight and a half miles from the Hill of Howth to Coolock. In a rural constituency these two points would be effectively next door to each other. Perhaps the issue of having due regard for people in rural areas could be addressed in the legislation. There is a need to interpret it in the broadest possible manner.
I am delighted to note that my city based colleague has such an understanding of the difficulties that can arise in rural Ireland and I know the Minister has taken an interest in this area. I understand the regulation uses the words "in close proximity" or such like. It is then a matter of interpretation. A constituent has contacted me in connection with a daughter or daughter-in-law - I cannot remember which - who provides care and who lives on one side of the town while the person cared for lives a couple of miles away on the other side. Care is provided on a full-time basis, if not always by the daughter or daughter-in-law then by her family. What is the Minister's experience of this provision? In response to a question he said he was monitoring it. Has he received any indication as to how it is working? We are all concerned that full-time carers should be entitled to the allowance, even if they live at a distance from the persons cared for.
I appreciate the idea behind the amendment, but I cannot accept it. I have been keeping a close eye on this. I recently queried a case. I had not received a representation from a Deputy, but when I read the file I was in agreement with the decision of the deciding officer. This morning I received a two page document which I have quickly read. It was somewhat confused and was a response to a query from me as to how these allowances were being implemented in the recent past. It indicated that deciding offices were taking into account the difference between urban and rural areas and that distances in rural areas may be further apart than in urban areas. I will try to get the note and give it further consideration. Since receiving it I have been trying to speak to somebody to ascertain the position.
I am keeping a close eye on this matter and I have asked the Irish Carers Association to bring to my attention any issues it considers should be addressed in the interpretation. If Deputies have cases which they consider to be unfairly decided we will look at them.
Will the provision refer to specific distances of, say, one, two or three miles, or will each case be considered on its merits? In the past in rural areas a son or daughter could build a house next door or relatively near to his or her parents. That was covered under the carer's allowance. In Meath, the constituency of my colleague, Deputy Johnny Brady, the chances of obtaining a house next door are slim to none. Westmeath and Cavan are heading in that direction, so the pressure on children to act as carers will become very great. Perhaps some distance arrangement might be the best way.
The overriding principle in this is that the person is giving full-time care and attention. If they live 20 minutes drive from the person for whom they are caring, that would not be regarded as being able to provide full-time care and attention. It depends on how long a person is in the premises providing the care. Each case is decided on its merits and all these issues must be taken into account. It is obvious that, in Deputy Brady's constituency where large differences exist, if the deciding officer is not convinced the carer can provide full-time care and attention, he or she will decide against. It is under review.
I know of a case where a person who lives two and a half to three miles away - a ten minute trip by car - from the person for whom they are caring has had their application refused. It is a crying shame because the woman being cared for is over 90 years of age. No one in the locality can be found to care for her, only the person who lives two and a half to three miles away. It is very unfair because the only person who can be found to care for this 93 year-old woman——
If the Deputy gives me the details, we will examine them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 40 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of the Social Welfare Act, 2000, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the effects of increasing the Respite Care Grant for recipients of Carers Benefit to £1,000.”.
Everyone welcomed the fact that, in introducing the carer's benefit, the Minister chose this opportunity to increase the respite care benefit to £300. Anyone who has been involved in caring - I am sure everyone in both Houses has done his or her own share of caring for parents, siblings or whatever - will know that £300 is a minuscule amount of money. It is especially so when one considers the cost of a week's holiday for carers where the person being cared for must be attended to by another person. Carers, especially full-time carers, need to get away for a week and experience a change in atmosphere from the task of caring. While the increase in the grant is welcome and is to be commended, it should be a decent sum of money, and £1,000 would be appropriate. It would help pay for the supports a person being cared for needs while his or her usual carer is away on a short holiday. As Deputy O'Keeffe repeatedly said yesterday, in the era of so much economic prosperity, we could be a little more generous.
I support my colleague. Before the respite care grant was introduced, I proposed such a grant and suggested that it be introduced at £1,000. I am glad the principle has been established. Two issues arise. The figure of £300 is very much on the small side. At the moment, 14,900 people receive the carer's allowance. I do not know how many will receive carer's benefit. There is a reference to 5,000 or 6,000, but I have my doubts. I imagine it will be a much lower figure. The difficulty is that the respite care grant is only payable to a person in receipt of the carer's allowance or who will qualify for the new carer's benefit. The unfortunate people are those who provide full-time care but are ineligible for any allowance and will receive no benefit. Even if we are not prepared to pay them an allowance or a benefit, there is a case for the respite care grant to be paid to such people. I know the Minister is not in a position to concede my point at this stage, but we will keep hammering at it.
It was at my initiative that the respite care grant was introduced in the previous budget and it was acknowledged as one of the more innovative changes in the carer's allowance, mainly because it was tangible. I indicated at the time that I would endeavour to incrementally increase it and I did that this year. To increase it to £1,000 per person in respect of the carer's allowance alone would cost £10.5 million based on the figures that about 15,000 people receive carer's allowance at present. We are not able to estimate the cost in respect of the carer's benefit because it is not in being. We estimate the figures for those who will be in receipt of carer's benefit to be in the region of 6,600, so the cost would be that figure multiplied by £1,000.
We will incrementally increase the grant as resources permit, but it must be stressed that this issue would be more appropriately dealt with through the respite facilities available in the health service which also has a part to play. Last year, the Minister for Health and Children increased the provision for respite care in the budget by £1 million on top of my Department's introduction of the £200 respite care grant for those in receipt of carer's allowance. I do not recall what the Minister for Health and Children did this year, but I have no doubt that there is a substantial Vote in respect of respite care. It is not enough, but it is something we will endeavour to increase in both Departments.
Did the Minister consider giving a respite grant to people who do not qualify for the allowance and may not qualify for the benefit but who are carers?
I am only responsible for those in receipt of carer's allowance. If people do not qualify for it, they will obviously have to go to the health services for assistance. Other than that, people are entitled to apply and receive the domiciliary care allowance. We made a change whereby children between nought and two years of age are included and people in receipt of the carer's allowance can avail of the domiciliary care allowance. We have also extended the respite care grant to people in receipt of the domiciliary care allowance.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 21 is out of order as it would involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I am happy the carer's benefit will be introduced. There will not be the same numbers applying for it as predicted but it is a contribution in its own way. I am prepared to agree the section but I wish to raise the point made in the amendment which has been ruled out of order. It would be appropriate in some instances to allow the person in employment to continue working and to allow his or her spouse draw the carer's benefit. There are provisions for a wife to draw benefit based on her husband's contributions. It is in the best interests of everyone, including the employer, the worker, the spouse at home, who is usually the wife, and the person being cared for, to allow something along the lines I have proposed. I do not expect the Minister to accept my point, but perhaps he might consider changing the carer's benefit along the lines I propose.
I echo the comments made by Deputy O'Keeffe. It is a valuable innovation. Sometimes I wonder if lengthy contributions are useful given the narrow way we are allowed to table amendments. Deputy O'Keeffe and I made strong arguments last year for carer's benefit. I commend the Minister on including it in the Bill for the first time.
A couple of weeks ago the Carers Association met representatives of all the political parties. One of its key demands was for the Minister to consider transferring the benefit to the carer in the home, provided the person working outside the home qualifies for it. The Minister should consider this proposal for next year.
I am delighted to be able to include this section which was prompted by the many representations made not only by Deputies O'Keeffe and Broughan but also by Deputies on my side of the House, particularly Fianna Fáil Deputies. Anyone in ministerial office knows that it is sometimes better to introduce a new scheme than to improve an existing one.
This is an important scheme because it deals with the present and future care of incapacitated people in the home. While Deputy O'Keeffe may doubt the figures, I have no doubt that in time the carer's benefit will become an important tool in helping people to meet some of the costs incurred in looking after people in the home and encouraging families to keep people in the home rather than putting them into institutions.
As regards spousal swap, the only social welfare scheme where a person may receive payment based on PRSI contributions paid by his or her spouse or partner is the widow and widower's contributory pension. This provision applies only on the demise of one of the people. This issue of spousal swap relates otherwise to community employment schemes which are operated by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and FÁS.
The carer's benefit scheme is specifically intended to support people who face the difficult circumstances involved in caring and working. The purpose of the scheme is to facilitate them to care by allowing them to leave the workforce with the added security that their employment rights will be retained as a carer's benefit payment will be made to the person leaving employment based on his or her contributions and his or her employment rights will then be preserved. It would not be possible nor in keeping with the scheme to extend it to the spouse of the qualifying person. It is possible for another member of the family who is in employment to take time off when the 15 months run out to continue with the carer's benefit which would allow the person to be cared for at home.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
On what date will the new scheme commence?
In October. It is delayed because we must pass legislation which will guarantee the rights. Otherwise, it would have been brought in earlier.
The Minister started off with a year and then after Christmas he announced he was extending it to 65 weeks. Given that 6,000 people might avail of the carer's benefit, are people who leave work for a short period to look after an aged parent who had a stroke covered under this provision?
It is done on a cumulative basis. People can go in and out of work.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24, 43 and 47e are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 13, before section 13, but in Part III, to insert the following new section:
"PART IV
CARER'S ALLOWANCE
13.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the effects of increasing the weekly income disregard for the Carer's Allowance to £250 in the case of a married couple and to £125 a week in the case of a single person.".
The most fundamental of this group of amendments is amendment No. 24 which relates to the abolition of the means test. The Minister has taken credit for increasing the number of people who can avail of the carer's allowance to 14,500. However, thousands of people are not being facilitated. In a reply to a recent parliamentary question the Minister said there are approximately 50,000 full-time carers. However, estimates by the Carers Association, Crosscare and other bodies suggest that the figure is approximately 100,000.
A few months ago I asked the Department officials at a meeting of this committee the total cost of abolishing the means test for the core group of full-time carers. They said it would cost approximately £150 million. I made the point on Question Time that the 30,000 to 100,000 carers who have not been facilitated - I accept that a further 5,000 to 6,000 might enter the scheme by means of the new carer's benefit - are possibly saving the State as much as £30,000 per person per annum. If the person for whom they are caring is institutionalised, this might rise to £40,000. The State, therefore, is possibly saving £1.5 billion at present because the means test relating to carer's allowances is so restrictive. For a sum of £150 million, the Government could have given enormous relief to many households and many people.
Caring is something in which each of us has been or will be involved at some stage in our lives, either as the recipient of care or as a carer, and it is critical that this House and the Government are prepared to give the fullest possible support to people who do this often heroic work for those who are in greatest need. As I said when the budget was introduced, it is depressing that the Government has not been able to be more generous in respect of the carer's allowance. On that basis, I ask the Minister to consider amendment No. 24.
Working again on the basis of a much less restrictive application of the carer's allowance means test, amendment No. 22 requests that the disregard be increased to £250 per week for married couples and £125 per week for single people. That was another of the key and reasonable demands voiced by the representatives of the Carers Association at our recent meeting.
Amendment No. 47e involves the issue to which Deputy McGrath alluded earlier. It requests the Minister to lay before the Houses a report on “the implications of relaxing the rule that a recipient of carer’s allowance cannot claim another social welfare payment at the same time in circumstances where the recipient incurs additional expenses, for example as a carer and a lone parent.” Deputy Shortall drafted this amendment and she had in mind a person who is in receipt of a lone parent allowance and who is also acting as a carer. However, she may have come across other people who incurred major expenses.
I am not sure if the amendment dealing with the cost of caring is being taken with this group but it relates to the same thing. As in the case of respite care and the relaxation of the means test, this involves the significant costs a household would incur in the area of caring. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility, in this instance, of relaxing the rules in respect of double payments where a person is in receipt of a carer's allowance and in those important cases where significant additional costs are involved. Perhaps he might be prepared to allow people to receive either part or all of a second payment.
Many Members know people on unemployment assistance - I refer here to women who previously worked for a considerable period - who, effectively, are full-time carers and who do not receive a penny for their work. I hope the Minister will also consider that issue. However, my key request is that he relax the current disregards in relation to the carer's allowance.
The Minister will no doubt respond by informing us of the improvements in the carer's allowance since he came to office. I accept there have been improvements, but these have been confined to those in a position to obtain the allowance. Whether the proportion of people who can obtain the carer's allowance is 25% or 10% of the total number of carers in the country depends on whose figures one accepts. No one is quite sure of the exact number of people who are providing full-time care and attention. The lowest figure appears to be 49,000, while the highest can run into the hundreds of thousands. I presume the actual number is somewhere upwards of 100,000. At present, however, fewer than 15,000 people qualify. Even with the introduction of carer's benefit, the figure will remain below 20,000.
My concerns relate to those who do not qualify for payment. It is not right or just that they do not qualify and it is not very sensible either. We should encourage more people to continue to provide care. The cheapest option involves the payment of the respite care allowance to those who would otherwise qualify were it not for the means test. Despite the improvements the Minister has trumpeted in the past - I do not encourage him to continue to do so here - the means test for spouses has not been amended since he came to office.
That is correct.
If that is the case, it is a mark of shame. I encourage the Minister to focus on that matter, if possible this year but if not, in the near future. It is quite unfair to continue to exclude those who are marginally excluded at present and who would have qualified if there had been any reasonable improvement in the means disregard in recent years. There was a slight change in the means test for single people but these situations normally involve married couples.
My third point, which really aggravates me, involves the total exclusion of a social welfare recipient. Usually such people are widows or they are in receipt of a single women's allowance of some kind. It is unfair that such people, who are not well off, are excluded from the carer's allowance scheme. The Minister can offer the technical answer that they are entitled to obtain the carer's allowance, but if they do, they are obliged to give up their other payment.
If I were an irresponsible Opposition spokesperson, I would say that the ideal answer would be to pay the two allowances. However, I am not irresponsible. There may be a via media by which we can solve this problem. The Minister stated that, in certain circumstances, a person in receipt of a widow’s pension can also obtain disability benefit at half rate. Perhaps we could use this as a starting point in terms of resolving the difficulties with carer’s allowance. However, there must be some recognition of the additional burden and costs associated with caring. The most pernicious restriction in place at present is the total exclusion of those on other social welfare payments from obtaining a carer’s allowance. That is wrong.
The report on carer's allowance contained the anodyne comment that, in general, double payments have never been allowed in the social welfare system. That is not the point because, in the interests of justice and fairness, there should be some recognition and some payment. I urge the Minister to give a commitment in respect of the three principal items on which Fine Gael and Labour are focusing, namely, a respite care grant for all carers, improving the means test and the weekly disregard and removing the pernicious exclusion of social welfare recipients from qualification.
I support the amendments, particularly that which deals with changing the means test for carer's allowance. The Minister informed us yesterday of the dramatic improvements he has put in place since he entered office and he stated that Fine Gael, when in power, took no action in respect of the social welfare system. This is one area which clearly stands out. The disregard was changed from £50 to £150 in the two years in which Fine Gael was in Government.
It was changed from £100 to £150.
It has not been changed since.
It has been changed.
No. Income has increased in line with other incomes and fewer people than before can now obtain this allowance through means tests. I know of a lady who has taken her seriously ill sister into her home. If she had not done so her sister would have had no choice but to go into an institution. This woman is 32 years of age and is dying. However, because her husband has a manual job and does a little overtime, she is not entitled to any payment. The community welfare officer is looking sympathetically at this case and is prepared to give her a few pounds.
I also know of a widow who is still looking after her husband's parent. This woman not only lost her husband's income but also her carer's allowance and is living on a widow's pension. Such a person finds it hard to understand how the Department allows someone on a back to work scheme to obtain double social welfare payments for up to three years.
I support Deputy O'Keeffe's statement that there must be an interim solution under which at least 50% of the money could be paid. Political representatives must ensure that such a change is brought about. I support this amendment. It is in everyone's best interests that as many people as possible are cared for at home. I had the good fortune to care for my mother until she was 93 years of age, so I have some experience of the difficulties and costs involved. It is better for everyone if such people can be looked after at home by a parent, aunt, uncle, neighbour or whoever. This is the cheapest way to care for these people.
I recently received a telephone call from a man who stated that the cost of the nursing home in which his parent was staying had gone up by 24.5%, yet there was no increase in the nursing home subvention this year. This is why, if we are to follow through on the Minister's claim yesterday that the Government is looking after all sections of the community, we need to make sure that the carer's allowance is available to as many people as possible.
Carers are the unsung heroes of this country. They do tremendous work looking after people who are not able to get around or who have a disability and who prefer to stay in their own home or with relatives rather than being institutionalised. Some estimates have suggested that the numbers involved may be as many as 100,000 people. About 14,000 people are recognised by the State as being carers. This means that about 14% of all those doing such caring get some recognition from the State that they are doing a good job. The Minister may argue that this represents 25% of the total but, even if it is that low, any system which acknowledges such a small proportion of people is radically wrong in some way.
These amendments would help to deal with many of the anomalies which exist. The payment of respite care allowance to all carers would give some recognition to all those who will not get anything else. Quite a proportion of people do not fit into any of the other categories but a respite care payment would at least be an acknowledgement of their work and would give them a break. Caring is a difficult job which goes on 24 hours a day. Many carers get no break and a respite care payment would assist them.
The means test has not been changed during the Minister's term in office. The Minister has done some good things - he reminded us of them yesterday - but the position of carers is his Achilles heel. The Carers Association has been disappointed by three budgets in which there was no decent improvement in the lot of carers. The Minister has been tinkering at the edges but he has not addressed the core of the problem.
Deputy Crawford rightly pointed out that the income disregard went from £100 to £150 during the last Government's term of office. At £150 per week it means that a couple earning £300 will not qualify for the carer's allowance. The £150 disregard is divided between the two people - £75 each. This means that they will get £3 as carers. The income disregard is very low considering that wages have increased, and the £150 must be increased. Three years ago the Carers Association called for it to be increased to £200 per week but that has not been done, and that is disappointing.
There has to be some flexibility when it comes to the income disregard. I know of a case involving a terminally ill bachelor living alone. This man had two sisters, both of whom had families, one living in Kildare and one in Orlando. The sisters decided to take turns looking after this man on the basis of six or eight week periods. The lady in Kildare was reasonably well off and the allowance did not matter too much. Her sister in Orlando, however, who was a pensioner, came to Ireland every six weeks to look after her brother and felt that she should be entitled to the carer's allowance for the periods she spent here. We sought the carer's allowance for this woman but without much success. The Department wanted details of her pension, any property she had and so on.
This was a straightforward case of someone doing a very good job looking after her brother, sacrificing her home and family in Orlando and incurring huge costs by flying over and back. The Department almost wanted to know what she had for breakfast, and that was a pity. There should be a more flexible approach to such cases. Deciding officers should have some discretion to look at individual cases. This woman was not looking for much, but if she had been granted the allowance it would have made a significant difference to her. More important, it would have been recognition that the State appreciated what she was doing. The man could have been institutionalised but did not want that to happen. He was a bachelor who lived alone for a long time and he did not want to leave his home. It was a pity the State did not give some recognition in this case.
Deputy Crawford, and others, referred to double payments, and the Deputy outlined a case involving a widow. This woman had been receiving the carer's allowance and when her husband died she lost her husband's income, his help and companionship and the carer's allowance. She qualified for the widow's contributory pension and, lo and behold, she had to make up her mind to take either the widow's contributory pension or the carer's allowance. It was a harsh decision on the part of the Department. Here was a person who had a good job and whose income was then reduced to £80 per week, with which she had to run the entire household.
Widows are the forgotten people. Deputy Crawford's case is another example of how badly we treat them. I ask the Minister to look at ways to facilitate carers. There have been some improvements but they have been minor in nature. If the respite care payment was made to all carers once a year and there was a change in the means test, there would be substantial benefits for carers. Under the proposed changes to the means test, some people on reduced payment will get the full rate but it will apply to a limited number of people. It is a gesture, but the payment has not kept pace with inflation. It was introduced at an income disregard of £100, then it was increased to £150. It has not changed since then although wages have risen dramatically. I hope the Minister will make a gesture at this the eleventh hour, and promise to go further next year.
Economic circumstances have changed. In many families, both spouses are at work. If someone has to care for a person, he or she must make sacrifices. While there has been a degree of recognition of those sacrifices in the past few years, as time goes on it will become more obvious that this will have to be addressed in a more realistic manner. The number of people who qualify for carer's allowance must be increased.
I remember dealing with a case of a person who cared for relatives for 15 years. That is a long time for anyone to be on hand day and night to ensure that the person being cared for was not institutionalised. Furthermore, that commitment saved the State a considerable amount of money. After 15 years the woman in question discovered she did not qualify for anything more than a nominal payment of £26 per week because of the manner in which the payment was assessed. She was not looking for a second payment - the first payment was reduced by half. That situation should be covered by social welfare law. Once the person is established as having an entitlement to a payment, the higher payment to which the person is entitled is the payment for which he or she should qualify. In this case the woman qualified for only one payment. Because there was a different assessment of means for that payment, her income was reduced. That is ridiculous. It could be said that the person should look for supplementary welfare, but the same rules apply for qualification. The means test which had already been carried out would apply to supplementary welfare and the same problems would arise.
I said on Second Stage that it is time to refine the social welfare payment system by looking at the gaps in it. These issues must be addressed in a humane way. In an increasingly impersonal world, we must recognise the sacrifices made by those who give such care and commitment. It must be put on a different plane from other economic considerations. If we do not do that, the time will come when people will say that if they do not receive assistance for this work, someone else will have to do it. That is how it is done in other countries. I ask the Minister to look at this aspect of social welfare legislation as soon as possible.
I thank Deputies for raising this issue. This is an area where we must look to the future. Just as the Government set aside money to fund future pensions, we must also find new ways to address care for the ageing population. I have suggested that we should look at partnership models. We could also use resources from a number of Departments, in co-ordination with private individuals, to address the future issue of caring for incapacitated people in the home.
We should examine the possibility of allowing people to insure themselves. It is not currently possible for people to insure themselves against future caring needs. In other countries the equity of people's houses is used to fund their care. I have discussed this with people from those countries and the experience has been somewhat sporadic. It works in some places but not in others. The Minister for Health and Children, his officials and I had a meeting recently and we will continue to look at this and other issues.
Deputy McGrath said that minor changes have been made in my term, but that is patently incorrect. I have been accused of going over history, but it is illustrative. I am anxious to hear if any lobby group or Member of the House queries this, that any objective look at the changes made during my two and half years in office in comparison with the changes that were made under previous Administrations, including those of my own party, shows that no Minister has made more major changes in the carer's allowance. The record speaks for itself. I can list the changes made during my tenure, particularly in 1999 and this year. There were at least 11 in 1999 and approximately eight this year.
What about the income disregards?
I will come to that. All the changes made by me were targeted by the carer's allowance review. I have delivered on all the recommendations except one. If the Deputies read that review again they will see that everything suggested was implemented. The exception is the continual care payment, which the review suggested could only be introduced in conjunction with establishing a system of needs assessment. This has been put in train under the chairmanship of the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, and he has already instituted a pilot needs assessment scheme in the Western Health Board region.
It is necessary to show what was done previously to offer a comparison. In 1997, the last year the previous Government was in office, the only change was an increase of 4.4% in the rate. It made a small change——
To what amount?
The rate was increased from £67 to £70.50, a sum of £3. That was the major change in that year. The previous Government did nothing about the disregards.
What about the previous years?
It was increased from £100, the figure introduced by Deputy Woods in 1994, to £150 in respect of spouse's income. The Deputy said I made no changes in that regard but I did. In June 1997 there was a 4.4% increase, a sum of £3. There was a 50% rate increase for carers caring for more than one person. There are very few such carers in the country so it was a minuscule amendment. Care recipients were also allowed to attend rehabilitation courses. Those were the changes in 1997.
In 1999, I gave free travel to carers of people who receive prescribed relative's allowance or constant care allowance, having given free travel to all recipients of carer's allowance the previous year. I gave credited contributions for all carers in receipt of carer's allowance and for carers of people who receive a prescribed relative's or constant care allowance. The rates were increased and I introduced a one year payment of £200 in respect of respite care. Carers of 16 to 65 years were made eligible to apply for the carer's allowance, something which had not happened previously.
A significant change was that carers of children who receive domiciliary care allowance were eligible to apply for carer's allowance. The costing for that change was approximately £9 million. Carers are allowed to take up paid employment of up to ten hours per week, the residency conditions have been relaxed and free telephone rental allowance has been given to all carers in receipt of carer's allowance and carers of people in receipt of precribed relative's allowance or constant care allowance. The £150 weekly income disregard, instead of applying to just the spouse's income, applied to a couple's joint income. In effect, it was a change. A £75 weekly income disregard for single person's income was introduced. I made changes in that regard.
I need not remind the committee of what I did in 2000. The major significant change was the introduction of the carer's benefit scheme. The most illustrative, however, are the figures——
The Minister is being let off.
I am not. The Deputy thought he was good at percentages. Perhaps he will assess the percentages, particularly in regard to when his party in Government made changes, in the amount of money spent. In 1997, £36 million was spent. The estimate for 2000 is £80 million. What is the percentage increase? It is significant. More significantly, at the end of 1997 - the current Government had some responsibility for that year - 10,000 people were in receipt of the allowance. It is estimated that at the end of 2000 there will be 17,000 people in receipt of carer's allowance. There has been a 60% increase in the number of people in receipt of carer's allowance. All of them will get the benefit of the free schemes as a result of changes I have made and the figures have increased in terms of money. They are not minor changes. It is an increase from £36 million to £83 million. That is incredibly significant.
On a point of order, Chairman, does the vote in the House take precedence to this meeting?
It does. I will suspend the meeting.
I am not finished.
Will the Chairman ask the Minister to address the amendments when the committee returns?
I will.
That is what he is doing. Does the committee wish to take a half hour break now for tea?
It would be a more efficient use of time to break now for the vote and take half an hour for tea.
We can return at 6.30 p.m.
We will break now and resume at 6.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 5.38 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
In line with the 1999 budget, changes came into effect last August. The first £150 of joint weekly assessment of married couples and the first £75 for single carers is not taken into account in the means test. It is estimated that increasing the means disregard to £125 for single persons and £250 for married couples would increase the payment of approximately 2,200 existing carers at a total cost of £3.5 million. It is difficult to estimate the additional people who might qualify as income data is not available. However, it is estimated that costs in the region of £13 million would be incurred if an estimated additional 3,000 carers qualify, leading to a total increase of approximately £16.5 million in overall expenditure.
Carer's benefit is the best innovation I have introduced because it is a non-means tested payment. It is an additional benefit to the carer's allowance. As regards the carer's allowance, I have tried to introduce a new scheme. Anyone who has worked in a Department, particularly this Department, knows it is difficult to introduce a new scheme. That was my priority in this budget. As a result of representations from all sides of the House, I will keep the income disregard under review. I would like to think that over the next few years I will increase the income disregard, subject to budgetary constraints. We have complied with all the recommendations in the carer's allowance review. The only other issue in this area is to erase the income disregard.
The cost of caring allowance is similar to that of the disability payment which was recommended by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. There is a commitment under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to establish a working group to examine the feasibility of introducing such a payment and to consult with the social partners on this issue. I had discussions with the Minister for Health and Children in the past week about how this working group could be established.
As regards the abolition of the means test for carers, a means test in which the income of both the applicant and his or her partner is assessable applies to carer's allowance as to all other social assistance schemes to ensure that limited resources are directed to those in greatest need. The means test has been eased significantly in recent years, notably with the introduction of disregards of income from employment and other sources. I made changes in the 1999 budget to the income disregard.
The review of the carer's allowance which was published in October 1998 noted that it would be difficult to estimate the number of full-time carers. Based on the work of the review, the current figure is estimated to be approximately 50,000 people which covers carers of older people and adults and children with disabilities. Based on these estimates, the complete abolition of the means test will cost in excess of £150 million in a full year.
As regards respite pay for all carers, including those who are currently excluded by the means test, the once-off payment of £200 towards respite care was made in the 1999 budget. This payment was paid on 3 June and benefited 12,000 carers at the time, at a total cost of £2.4 million. We have increased that payment. Deputy McGrath suggested we should pay the respite grant to all carers, including those excluded from the carer's allowance, and that it should be based on medical needs. That is not a matter for my Department but for the Department of Health and Children. However, it would be inequitable to pay a respite grant to a family which was excluded from the carer's allowance while others received the carer's allowance and the respite grant. A large section would get a once-off payment per year but they would not get a weekly payment, although they would feel entitled to a full payment.
As regards the suggestion that we should remove the disqualification where carers in receipt of social welfare are effectively excluded from qualifying for a carer's allowance, the review of the carer's allowance which was published in 1998 noted that the carer's allowance is an income support payment and not a payment for caring. It examined the issue of paying the carer's allowance in conjunction with another social welfare payment and concluded that the practice of paying only one allowance should continue as this is a fundamental feature, with few exceptions, of all social welfare payments and is designed to ensure that limited resources are not used to make two income support payments to any one individual. The person qualifying for two social welfare payments will always receive the higher payment to which they are entitled.
Funding for the carer's allowance has increased from £36 million to an estimated £80 million in two and a half years. There has been a 60% increase in the number of recipients, from approximately 8,000 when we came to office to approximately 17,000 this year. The 17,000 recipients of carer's allowance will get all the free schemes as of right which they did not get before. There are plenty of other additions. People on domiciliary care allowance can apply for the carer's allowance. All those changes have been very dramatic. I accept more needed to be done. People asked for the means test for the carer's allowance to be done away with. I have brought in a non-means tested carer's benefit this year from which, we estimate, substantial numbers of people will have the right to benefit, with their employment rights guaranteed after the 15 months.
Having said that, I fully understand the difficulties in this area. We need to take a much broader look at the issue of care of elderly people. The Government has taken a very significant decision on pensions, whereby we have put forward the funding of future pensions. We need to look at future care of the elderly. I have suggested two models we could look at. The first is to help people to take out an insurance policy against illness, rather than relying on their families or the State or a combination of both. Similarly, we could allow people use the equity in their property to pay for their care needs. We should push forward in those areas. I have already had some meetings with the Minister for Health and Children in this regard.
In regard to the coming year, all the recommendations in the carer's allowance review published in October 1998 have been complied with. As far as I am concerned, bar the continual care payment - and there are moves afoot in that respect - the only other issue I must deal with is raising the income disregard. That is subject to the budgetary discussions between now and next December, but my view is that it should be increased. I look forward to doing that.
Why not do it tonight?
I have an allocation of money. I brought forward the carer's benefit. All Deputies have acknowledged that very beneficial changes have been made. That is the way we are going. I have delivered on all my commitments. Any objective examination of this area will show that more changes have been made during my tenure than during that of any other Minister.
The Minister is unyielding. He will be remembered, not for the reasons he has outlined, but as the Minister who established more working groups and interdepartmental groups than any other Minister in history. Although he is not interested in rugby football, he kicked many things to touch in the past two-and-a-half years. His favourite mode of operation is to kick high into the stand, which he does in almost every instance. These four amendments are a perfect example of that.
That is not the case. That is nonsense.
In amendment No. 47e. the Minister was asked to look again at the situation where, as in the case raised by Deputy Shortall - although we do not like to use too many individual cases - a lone parent had to give up her well paid job to look after her mother who had a long-term illness. She could now have access to carer’s benefit when her unemployment benefit runs out. However, while the carer’s benefit is welcome, it represents a significant fall in income for someone earning £15,000 or £18,000 as a a legal secretary, for example.
However, it is much more than when the Deputy was in Government and did sweet damn all.
I have not yet had the distinction of being in Government.
The Deputy's party was.
When the Labour Party class of 1992 is eventually in Government I hope we will see some very fundamental changes here.
Some of them have been.
Yes, but some of them are no longer in the Dáil.
The Deputy is afraid he will not be asked.
I ask the Minister to look at this. He said his group had turned it down and said there can be only one payment. However, there is a significant number of that kind of case, where the payment for a lone parent and for a carer is almost the same. These people may have lost out on a significant income. I would like the Minister to look again at amendment No. 47e.
I accept the point the Minister made about income disregard. However, Deputy McDowell tells me the Finance Bill is running on a bit and, if the Minister wishes to be really dynamic, he still has the opportunity to accept this amendment and ask the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to make a couple of changes before 10.30 p.m.
He is not well disposed to social welfare.
No, he is not. He was the Minister responsible for the dirty dozen. He has always taken a very harsh view of social welfare recipients, despite his pretending otherwise.
The luxury of opposition.
It is a basic fact. The Minister has an opportunity over the next two hours to significantly change the disregards which, shamefully, have not been changed throughout his administration. That would allow a number of very deserving carers to receive the carer's allowance.
The Minister referred to a working group on the PPF in the context of the cost of caring. I gave the Minister some rough figures I worked out during his budget speech about the benefits of abolition of the means test. However, even a very modest cost of caring allowance of £30 or £40 per week would be significantly cheaper than the £1.5 billion minimum real cost of caring which is borne by individual citizens to whom the State has given very little assistance, despite what the Minister said, over the years. The Minister should examine the abolition of the means test. He should at least, as the amendment asks, bring a report before the Oireachtas on what the impact of that would be.
He is now giving himself credit for helping 17,000 carers. However, this is only March 2000 and I think the figure is significantly lower than that.
I said it will be 17,000 at the end of 2000.
One hopes the Minister will still be in Government. The point is——
I assure the Deputy we will be.
The Minister may still be taking care of——
There are no fears about that.
I hope the Minister will be arguing with us from these benches. We will live up to the proposals in our amendments. There is a very strong case to be made for straightforward abolition. However, at the very least, the Minister should accept amendment No. 22. He still has approximately two and a half hours to make that happen.
Not everyone who has lobbied on this issue is in favour of doing away with the means test completely. They appreciate that the resources need to be targeted at those most in need, not at well off people with 200 acres in the best areas or millionaire farmers and business people——
Or solicitors.
Or solicitors, although I can assure the Deputy that solicitors are never millionaires, unlike farmers. I would have thought a member of the Labour Party would agree with me that it is inequitable that a person with such resources should be entitled to the same payment as someone on a very low income. Maybe it has to do with the difference between my party and other parties, but I can assure the committee that the philosophy in my party is that one should target the resources at the less well off. That is the rationale behind means tests. Across the social welfare code there is no other scheme, apart from child benefit, which is universal, in other words, which is not means tested, in the social assistance area.
Yesterday the Minister said he would not tax it.
That is the point. This year I got the foot in the door and introduced a non-means tested payment, the carer's benefit. Of all the changes I have made, that is the most significant because it will be there forever and a day and will be built upon.
How much would it cost to increase the disregard from £150 to £200 this year? That would at least account for the inflation of recent years.
On the amendments, the Minister went on at length making comparisons. We on this side of the House appreciate and acknowledge the positive decisions which are made and we encourage such decisions, but that does not necessarily mean we should be silenced from suggesting what should be done also. The Minister should not feel compelled to go into 'Bart Simpson' mode as soon as there is a little criticism from this side of the House.
On the amendment, please.
It is not a defence for the Government to spend its time making comparisons with what happened five or seven years ago. That should not be taken as an excuse for not addressing the issues. I would have thought the Minister would have addressed the issues, as he did in his last intervention, and agree that the Government would hope to go down a certain route in some area. That would be positive. We would not have any difficulty with that, but I get tired of this continuous moan about what happened in 1995. I could go back to 1994, 1993 and 1992, when it was the responsibility of the Minister's party and his colleagues, but I do not want to do that.
It is important that we address the issue under discussion here. It should not be regarded or taken as a defence at any time that all the Minister need do by way of reply is make comparisons with a past era.
I am just trying to illustrate the luxury of opposition.
If the Minister was hanging by his thumb nails since that era went by, he would have very sore thumbs by now. The case for carers is more compelling as time goes on because of all the points raised by my colleagues and to which the Minister referred. As time passes those issues become more acute. For that reason, if for no other, I hope the Minister can deal with this issue this year. If he cannot do it this year, then obviously he will be focussed in the right direction. We will support him from this side of the House and when we are on that side of the House, we will continue the good work in that direction also.
The amendment is in my name also. I am disappointed that the Minister does not see his way to accept this amendment. I am a littledisappointed with one of his final comments, where he asked why should a farmer with 200 acres qualify for a carer's allowance. My immediate response to that is this: if a farmer, irrespective of the size of his farm——
A millionaire farmer or a well off farmer.
Often farmers' incomes are quite low. If his income falls below the required limit——
The Deputy knows the point I was making; I was referring to a well off farmer or well-off people.
The Minister stated that a 200 acre farmer should not qualify for it.
A farmer with 200 acres is well off.
My colleague, Deputy Johnny Brady, would be very disappointed if that message went out, particularly in north County Meath. All such matters must revolve around actual income. Since the Minister is not prepared to move the income thresholds, these people must manage and do the caring without the benefit of a carer's allowance. That is disappointing.
Minister, do you wish to answer Deputy Crawford's question?
The estimate is about £10 million.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Perry, John.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John (Wexford.)
- Fleming, Seán.
- Foley, Denis.
- Wade, Eddie.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 13, before section 13, but in Part III, to insert the following new section:
"13.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the effects of introducing a cost of caring allowance.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 13, before section 13, but in Part lll, to insert the following new section:
"13.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the effects of abolishing the means test for the Carer's Allowance.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 25, 47 and 47b are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 13, before section 13, but in Part lV, to insert the following new section:
"13.-The Minister shall, having regard to the financial difficulties encountered by widows and widowers, prepare a report and lay same before Dáil Éireann on the feasibility of extending to all widowers and widows-
(a) the Free Travel Pass,
(b) the Free Electricity Allowance, and
(c) the Free Telephone Rental Allowance,
which report should also review the possibility of a special increased payment to widows and widowers who have no other source of income other than Social Welfare.".
Widows and widowers are a neglected group and I had wondered what could be done for them without placing too great a cost on the Exchequer. It occurred to me that there is a case for the extension of the free schemes to widows. My thinking was particularly influenced by the fact that free schemes are available to widows over the age of 60 where such schemes have been available to their husbands prior to their deaths. We are now faced with the anomalous situation where, in many instances, widows who were under the age of 60 when their husbands died do not qualify for those free schemes. That applies particularly in cases where the husband did not qualify for the free schemes. I understand that even if the widow is under 60 at the time of death once she can prove that her husband was entitled to the free schemes before he died she can qualify on reaching 60 years of age. It is anomalous that one group of widows over 60 years of age qualifies for the free schemes while another does not.
I understand that a review is being carried out into the free schemes and that a report is due in the near future. I would like the review body to examine the possibility of extending the free scheme to widows and widowers in general. I am not sure what would be the cost of this but I cannot imagine that it would be too great. Will the Minister provide a figure on that when replying? Widows with no source of income other than the widow's pension can find themselves in extreme financial difficulty. My colleague, Deputy McGrath, is of the view that there should be some provision to make special increased payments to widows in such financial difficulty. My main focus is on the free schemes. My colleague will speak later on the issue of the increased payments. I tabled this amendment to cover the issue of widows and widowers.
I support this amendment, the intention of which is to do something for widows. Widows get a raw deal in our society. There are many instances of widows, who may be relatively young, trying to run households on their own on £78 or £80 per week. It is a tremendous change to go from having a spouse to living on a small pension. That leaves them in disastrous situations. The case was outlined by Deputy O'Keeffe where someone, who qualified for those "freebies" when their spouse was alive, no longer qualifies if they are under 60 when their spouse dies. They are left in a very bad situation.
I know there might be a difficulty in singling out widows and widowers from other single parents. However, I think there would be overwhelming support for giving a special place to widows in our society, which could be done by way of constitutional amendment if necessary. We owe that to them. We have treated them badly. I hope the Minister will have the generosity to concede some of those points. He has been in politics for a long time and he has come across some very sad situations.
Army widows whose husbands had opted out of the pension schemes come under the amendment but are outside the Minister's remit to an extent. I am sure there are some in his town. They go from a position of being relatively well off to having just a social welfare pension. That leaves them in poverty. It is not possible to run a house on £78 per week. I hope we will do something to improve the lot of widows and get a commitment to give them significant increases over a period.
I do not suppose the Minister will make any change tonight, but has any committee in the Department ever looked at making a special case for widowers or widows? My mother was widowed at a very young age with eight children. I have great sympathy for that section of the community. It is a major shock to a woman if her spouse dies and she is left with a family to rear and a major reduction in income.
Perhaps there are constitutional problems, but a committee in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs should be asked to examine whether a special case can be made for widows. Perhaps a widow with children could be paid increased child benefit. There is agreement on this on both sides of the House. We have raised it with various Ministers but no Minister has been prepared to do anything about it. Every Minister tells us they will look at it. I appreciate the Minister has made improvements in the area of death grant and the provision of a special allowance when a person dies. However, he should look seriously at how an increased allowance could be paid, whether through child benefit, child dependant's allowance or directly. The lot of widowers and, in particular, widows should be looked at seriously.
Everyone welcomed the new bereavement grant this year. However, we have all had experiences similar to a couple I have had in the past six months. For example, a widow with two children under 14 years and another two in senior secondary school and college might come to my information clinic in tears. Her husband might have had stamps and been on disability benefit. The Minister's refusal to change the rigid rule about the half rate benefit exacerbates her situation, where she could otherwise have access to another £30 or £40 per week. She is in dire straits and is typical of a good few women and the occasional man I have met in recent years.
We need to look at this area. Although there have been several instances since then, this was brought home to us this time last year when my colleague, the late Deputy Pat Upton, died. That brought home to my party the position of a young surviving family and their access to resources. This is a problem in the community and the Minister has not addressed it. The attempt by me and Deputies O'Keeffe and McGrath to cover this through the extension of the free schemes is a fair effort to ease the burden on very deserving families.
The other amendment tabled by me and Deputy Shortall refers to the threshold for the operation of the free schemes. She came across a number of cases where she felt there needed to be greater equity in the operation of these schemes, particularly for elderly couples, for example, where the principal income came from an occupational payment and the secondary income was a social welfare reduced pension. The allowance was granted to somebody over the age of 66 with an occupational pension of £170 or £180 and living with a dependant spouse. In one of the cases she referred to, the applicant did not quality for the allowance as her husband had an occupational pension of £200 per week, which was over the limit. She could not qualify as she was not receiving a qualified adult payment for him. There seems to an anomaly in that area which leads to an unequal distribution of the allowance. That is why Deputy Shortall suggested a uniform income threshold of £250 per week for this type of situation involving persons over 66 years. I know there have been developments for those over the age of 75 years. However, some additional help is needed in that area.
I support my colleagues in relation to the key element of amendment No. 27 and the other amendment relating to free schemes. Something fundamental should be done in this area.
I welcome the widowed parent grant of £1,000. If a widow's husband was not in receipt of any of the free schemes before he died, she cannot avail of any free scheme. A 60-year old widow who does not work, and who perhaps lives on her own because her family have left, will find it difficult to live on the amount of money she gets. I ask the Minister to consider granting the free schemes to widows aged between 55 and 60 years who do not work.
I want the Minister to clarify two points. He may have solved this issue because I have not encountered it for about two years. A few years ago I had a few cases of widows who were over 60 and whose husbands who had died aged 67 or 68, had never bothered to claim the free schemes. An application had not been made for the free schemes until their husbands were dead. This was done on the basis that the man had been entitled to benefit from the scheme but had not claimed under it when he was alive. However, that problem appears to have been solved as I have not come across it in recent years.
I have not made any changes.
It must be left to an officers' discretion.
I think they would have to be in receipt previously. We can check on that. The total cost of the free schemes is £166,354,000. The average value to a recipient was, I thought, approximately £11 but is approximately £13.74 per week. To extend the free schemes to 37,000 widows and widowers under 66 would cost in the region of £25 million.
As a result of representations from all sides of the House - particularly from my own parliamentary party - and statements to the effect that widows were the forgotten people, my officials and I looked into free schemes for widows, but the strong advice was that we could not do so without extending it to other large groups, such as lone parents or deserted wives. Those groups would be equally entitled to demand the free schemes if we were to extend them. The issue of equal treatment and the difficulties experienced because of that also arose. If we did anything, we would have to have a definite rationale and we looked at many proposals regarding widows and the free schemes. We gave a £1,000 extra grant to widows with children who qualified from budget day onwards and that, added to the £500, is a fairly substantial payment. I accept that it is not, perhaps, going as far as people would like, but a review of all aspects of the free schemes is taking place and this is one of the matters that will be examined. However, it is not a simple matter of saying we will give it to the widows, as there are other groups such as the sizeable number of lone parents, deserted wives and the long-term unemployed.
Regarding the introduction of an income threshold, the free schemes are normally available to low income pensioners who are not in receipt of a social welfare payment and who satisfy a means test. The weekly means income limit fixed for this purpose is the maximum rate of OAP which is £89 going up to £96 for a recipient aged 66 to 79 and £94 for a recipient aged 80 or over, plus £30 and plus any increases for the dependant's and living alone allowance. Pensioners living with a qualified adult could have an equivalent weekly income of £174.50 and qualify for the free schemes.
The make-up of this income limit means that it automatically increases each year on foot of the budget increases in pension rates. I consider this to be a more equitable rate than a fixed amount, as suggested in the amendment. It is difficult to estimate the cost of extending the free schemes to all non-qualifying pensioners 66 or over on an income threshold of £250 per week in the absence of the data on persons' income, but it could be in the region of £8 million annually. The aim of the scheme is to assist householders who are on long-term social welfare or health board payments and who are unable to provide for their own heating needs. A payment of £5 per week - £8 in smokeless zones - is payable to eligible households for 26 weeks from mid-October to mid-April, regardless of temperature. The free fuel scheme is somewhat different.
What is the effective threshold at present?
At present, not taking into account this year's increases, it is £174, but it will go up with the increases. I genuinely looked at this issue and tried to do something for widows especially, but equal treatment of others was the difficulty. As Members can see, the cost for widows is £25 million and the number of lone parents is substantially higher than the number of widows - it is approximately 70,000 - and we could leave ourselves open on it.
I appreciate the difficulties, but all sides of the House would like to see something a little better done for widows. I encourage the Minister to continue his efforts and perhaps take the advice of the review group and see if there is some way to help widows. Some say teachers are a forgotten group, but widows are not scoring very well under any provisions. This is particularly the case where widows have dependent children. I was taken by Deputy Browne's point. It is a savage situation when a woman is left trying to cater for a large family after the loss of her husband and perhaps a considerable reduction in the household finances. I am sure all sides of the House would like to see something done if it is possible.
I will undertake to the committee to look at this, but I was scratching my head as to what we could do apart from the £1,000 grant.
I think there is a route and perhaps Deputy O'Keeffe could take it on board in the review of the Constitution. If there was a special place in the Constitution for widows it would overcome the difficulty of having to pay the same to others. If this was put to the people they would respond; perhaps it can be taken on board that way.
The £1,000 for widows and widowers is a great idea and is imaginative; well done to the Minister. Perhaps the Minister would look into removing the restriction on dependent children up to 18 for next year. If a widow or widower has someone in college they will not get the £1,000 and it could be more expensive for widows and widowers, as having children in college is expensive, particularly if someone is only widowed at that time. If widows and widowers just got the £1,000 that would be the way to go.
The numbers of widows who do not have children qualifying go up dramatically and the 18 year old limit is being looked at in the context of the new partnership commitments. That may have implications for the age limit in this issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 13, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(2) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of the Social Welfare Act, 2000, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of increasing the Widowed Parent Grant to £2,000.”.
The Minister backdated this to early December? Or was it the day of the budget?
Yes, originally when we brought in the £500 we did it from, say, a date forward, but then many people came forward and said: "My relation died the day before" so we backdated it to the day the Government made the decision, which was early in 1998. This time we dated the widow's grant of £1,000 from the day of the budget.
I was thinking of a person whose husband died in December and who availed of it. We have had a full discussion on this provision. I am thinking of the costs incurred immediately by people, even for those who are insured, in trying to rebuild their lives. The grant could be much higher than £1,000 and we have proposed £2,000.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 14, line 24, after "contributions" to insert "as an employed contributor".
This seeks to clarify that the appropriate employment contribution paid prior to 1953 is taken into account. This new special pension for those who paid contributions prior to 1953 will be paid on the basis of the appropriate employment or self-employment contribution, as clarified in the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 29a:
In page 15, before section 17, to insert the following new section:
"17.-The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of extending section 16 in order to allow recipients of contributory old age pension on reduced rate to advance to a higher point on the scale, or to allow consideration of pre-1953 contributions in order to enable a contributor to qualify for retirement pension.”.
Obviously, we welcome the Minister's initiative regarding pre-1953 contributions. I have had discussions with the seniors' parliament and the trade unions' seniors' group. The Labour Party and Fine Gael made a very strong case last year, asking the Minister to examine the issue of pre-1953 contributions, given that he told us again and again at Question Time that it was a complex issue as, apparently, we did not have the same stamps and insurance as we now have. In that era there were several different types of insurance.
Deputy Shortall and I have been receiving feedback since the Bill was published. A person on a reduced rate contributory pension does not seem to have the facility to top up and move to a higher point on the scale. Also, there seems not to be any provision in terms of pre-1953 credits whereby a person could qualify for a retirement pension. These are two of the gaps which were highlighted in representations made to us, and the amendment makes further provision in these areas.
I am delighted that the campaign to take into account senior citizens who paid contributions prior to 1953 has succeeded. A few people contacted me who were unsure as to where they stood. They had less than five years contributions pre-1953.
Had they contributions post-1953?
No. I am not quite certain what is meant by subsection (2). A person contacted me who had three and a half year's contributions and then became self-employed.
The change in the three for two is to the advantage of people.
What about a person with three and a half years contributions?
In effect they would be entitled to five and a half years.
So they might qualify?
They might qualify. We must get examples and examine them.
Perhaps I will pass this case on to the Minister. It seems that we should lean over backwards for anybody of the age in question.
We have gone a fair distance in terms of pre-1953 contributions and the rationalisation of contribution rates. No matter where one draws the line there will always be those who will be excluded. A person with combined pre and post-1953 contributions will benefit.
I do not wish to be political about this issue, but it was very much to the fore in the lobbying of the Chairman and his colleague, Deputy Pat Carey, in the past two years. I was also lobbied at the Ard-Fheis over the past two years. This year people are very happy that the issue is being addressed. To a certain extent it is breaking a principle of the social welfare system. It is a nod in the direction of older people.
A person with three and a half years, pre-1953 contributions - 182 contributions - will be regarded as having 273 contributions, more than the required 260. Therefore, the provision is quite generous.
That is good.
Quite a number of people on reduced rates will now have their rates increased.
What about the amendment?
In effect, people on reduced payments will get a better payment out of the pre-1953 special rate pension because of how it is organised.
With regard to a person on a reduced payment with an average of 14 who is receiving £44.50 and who has five or six years contributions prior to 1953, which is equivalent to 300 contributions, but under the two for three mechanism amounts to 450 contributions, if those 450 contributions are added to their current figure, the average becomes 21. Will this increase their rate to £94?
No.
Can a person on an average of between ten to 19 benefit?
No, because this is a special pension of 50% of the maximum rate.
That is for a person currently not receiving anything. However, what about a person already on an average of between ten and 19?
He will get an increase under the rate band increases.
People are reading the provision in different ways. It is hard to see how the examples I have mentioned are ruled out.
Perhaps for Report Stage we will get a few examples to illustrate the effect of the provision. That we have introduced this provision should be acknowledged.
We have acknowledged it - the Minister should not be so touchy.
It was some battle to get it.
Section 16 refers to 260 contributions and subsection (2) contains a three for two provision. What will be the lower limit of contributions necessary? Will it be 170 or higher? The figure is relevant to the answer.
It is not about——
You have to divide by three and multiply by two, is that it?
Yes. Three and a half years will bring one over the five years.
If, using this formula, one had 140 contributions pre-1953, taking the three for two provision, one can then top it up post-1953 with full contributions. You can take the three for two on board in relation to pre-1953 and provided one can top that up one can still qualify for half pension at personal rate.
Yes.
Is there a qualified——
Yes, half that again.
Are pre-1953 contributions computerised?
No. The difficulty in doing this is a logistical nightmare for the staff.
So applications may take some time to process.
Not necessarily. We will publicise that these changes are being made and will invite people to apply.
A social welfare officer informed me that one of the ways of tracking is to quote the full name, date of birth and mother's maiden name. Is that the type of information one needs?
Yes.
A woman should also supply her maiden name.
Yes. Many of those details are already on the system.
Is there any move on the return of pensions?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 18, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) The Minister shall consider the possibility of exempting the first £2,000 of income derived from forestry premium and shall prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on this issue.".
I will speak first on the amendment and then on the section about which I have some questions regarding the revised means test, though I am glad to see progress has been made.
I tabled this amendment at the suggestion of my colleague, Deputy Deenihan, whose name could not be included at the end of the amendment because he is not a member of the committee. Because of the way in which we handle our business, those who are not members cannot table amendments. I wonder if that is a little undemocratic or unconstitutional. I ask, Chairman, that you look into this matter to see if we could include a provision whereby Members of the House, who are not members of the committee, who wish to table an amendment could be entitled to move and speak on such amendment but not have the right to vote on it. I wanted to invite Deputy Deenihan to speak on this amendment but could not do so.
Any Member may act as a substitute at the committee by submitting a letter in advance of the meeting.
I accept that one could use that procedure but if all members of the committee wish to attend a particular meeting one could not substitute. I should be entitled to table an amendment to, say, the Finance Bill and speak on it if I so wish even though I am not a member of that committee. It is a procedural point which could perhaps be considered. I do not wish to make a huge issue about it.
My understanding is that the first £2,000 of income from REPS is disregarded for assessment of means and in particular as regards farm assist. It has been strongly suggested to me that the same exemption should apply to the first £2,000 of income as regards forestry premium. It is State policy to encourage forestry and foreign investment in forestry. In this era of declarations, I am involved in one. We should encourage farmers to get involved in forestry. We have a State policy of encouraging forestry and priority should be given to encouraging farmers to become involved in forestry on their land. There is then a case for a disregard for the forestry premium they receive.
I would like to hear the Minister's response to that point. I am not sure if my colleague, Deputy Broughan, who has such an interest in rural matters will be supportive of this point. The Minister may not be in a position to give a full response to the matter today. There are genuine grounds for examining the possibility suggested by the amendment.
The forestry premium scheme is designed to replace farm income which is foregone through the change in the use of the land from ordinary farming activities to forestry. The forestry premium is unlike REPS and compensation payments under SACs which compensate farmers for material and work involved in complying with agri-environmental plans or SAC conditions and for which special income disregards are applied under the farm assist scheme. I introduced the disregard of REPS by way of compensatory payment. There is a difference; forestry premiums are actually income supports. Payments under the forestry premia scheme would equate to other forms of farm income. Accordingly, payments under this scheme are treated the same as other forms of farm income, for example, income from ordinary farm activities, headage payments etc. They are, therefore, properly assessed for means-tested social welfare purposes. I should make it clear, however, that under the farm assist scheme, farm incomes, excluding payments under the forestry premia scheme, are assessed on a more favourable basis than was previously the case. They are assessed at 80% rather than on a pound for pound basis. In addition, in accordance with section 18 the assessment rate will be further improved from October this year from 80% to 70%.
What is the amount disregarded for REPS?
It is £2,000.
So that figure is correct?
I think it was last year I made that change.
It was a good change——
I think it was at the instigation of the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív.
The only point I am making - perhaps we will introduce it ourselves next year if the Minister will not do it this year - is that we are trying to distinguish between a compensatory premium as opposed to an income.
It is compensation for money paid.
A couple of thousand pounds for one payment does not weigh any heavier than a couple of thousand for another in farmers' pockets. As someone who believes in forestry policy, who is aware that the Government targets on planting for forestry are not being reached and who strongly believes in having farmers more involved in forestry, perhaps this issue could be examined. I do not think it would cost very much, yet it would encourage more forestry planting and would be of benefit to people in remote parts of the country who are discouraged from becoming involved in planting for fear the premium will be taken into account in their pensions.
I cannot see much difference in income derived from REPS payments, which is by way of compensation for a loss of income, and——
No. It is income for expenses paid in respect of work done perhaps as a result of SACs. It is a compensatory payment for work done. In other words, it is an expense. That is how it can be justified, whereas forest premium is basically an income.
Being involved in forestry is an expense. There are annual forestry maintenance payments for the proper upkeep of forests. As more and more farmers are letting small quantities of land for forestry this creates an income for the farming community. As Deputy O'Keeffe said, it is something we should encourage, and I do not see it as a major problem. Farmers are upset that one payment is disregarded and another is not. It is not as clear in their minds as in the mind of the Minister. I am puzzled about it. I see it as income that could be disregarded for social welfare purposes.
The situation in regard to REPS is simple. One does not have to spend all the money or even any of it on expenses. A farm must be run within a certain regime, usually at a lower stocking rate and with limited fertiliser. I do not want it on the record that involvement in REPS is to cover for expenses. Money has to be spent on fencing and pollution, but it is certainly not compensation to help farmers stay on the land at a lower level of stocking and less density generally.
As payments are made under SAC conditions, with which one must comply, or for environmental work undertaken on the farm, profits are reduced and the REPS compensates for that. There is a grounding of the REPS. The forest premium is different as it is not in respect of money expended by the farmer. It is more an expense-related payment than income. This was examined because it had been suggested that forest premium should be considered. Deputy Woods pushed this issue strongly at the time but the strong advice from my Department was that the two payments are not the same.
As Deputy O'Keeffe said, if forestry was such a large income earner, we would have met our targets, but targets have not been met.
I hasten to add that the Department of Finance was of the view that they were two different types of payments.
Surprise, surprise. The Minister is splitting hairs here and I can see where the hairs started to split first. It is not a defence to say that the Department of Finance is against this because, having served as Minister of State at that Department for a couple of years, I am well aware of the attitude on extra expenditure. The initial opening position for any request is, no. I suggest that the Minister examine the situation again. The Jesuits would have a job trying to verify the correctness of the Minister's position on what is a profit and what is an expense. As I understand it, from the point of view of REPS, very often one spends less in that there are lower costs in respect of fertiliser and so on. It is wrong to suggest it is a compensation for expense. In forestry one has the expense of preparing the land and trees have to be bought and planted. A forestry premium is an encouragement to farmers to incur such an expense. It can be argued either way. It is a political decision to a degree and I ask the Minister to consider it further. I am convinced that from the point of view of the State it is the right approach, but I am also convinced that from the point of view of the lonely farmers it would be an encouragement to get involved in supporting State policies.
We will examine it again but I would not hold out much hope.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
I tabled an amendment regarding a new means test which has been ruled out of order. I am glad the Minister has agreed to changes. It was a fair and worthwhile campaign. Having pressed the issue for a year and a half and having got the Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs to adopt it and informed the Minister that the regime he was running was unfair, I am glad that at long last he has seen the light - well done. A late conversion is better than no conversion.
This is what we call the O'Keeffe section.
Not quite because I still have a question mark in relation to it. My starting point, of course, was that actual income rather than notional income should be taken into account. I appreciate that can give rise to difficulties too. I am concerned about the £4 per thousand assessment at the upper end of the scale. As far as I can establish, and my figures may be wrong, that amounts to approximately 22%, which is overboard. I suggested that should be reduced. At present it is 7.5% and 15%. If one takes £4 per week per thousand it is more than 20%. That is ridiculous. In effect, it increases the present top limit of 15%. If that is so, it is one aspect of the new package which is glaringly out of place.
I am glad to bring forward this aspect of the Bill because it will not give old people an excuse to have money under their beds or somewhere else in their houses. It will reduce the potential risk of them being robbed.
Members on both sides of the House have an obligation to publicise this arrangement. A married couple with a deposit of up to £20,000 will lose none of their social welfare benefit. The survey which I quoted earlier shows that a tiny proportion of people have incomes greater than the level referred to and much of what we have done is based on the results of that survey.
The amendment would provide higher gains for those with higher amounts of capital. In addition, it would increase the maximum levels of capital allowed for qualification purposes from £44,999 to £49,999 for single people, an increase of £5,000, and from £88,999 to £98,999 for a couple, an increase of £10,000. The proposal would be of no benefit to the vast majority of pensioners, more than 99% of whom are below the threshold at which the £4 assessment applies, that is, single people with capital above £30,999 and couples with capital above £60,999. We have gone as far as we can.
Any couple who have capital of £60,999 should be making some contribution towards the issue.
Is the figure of 20% at the top end?
For a single person at £40,000 it is 10.5% currently. The new rate is 9.1%.
At the top end?
At the top end, £40,000.
A return of £4 per week on £1,000 is £208 per year. That is 20.8%.
These are the figures which have been supplied to me.
They must be from a different calculator.
I am using my head.
Because of the disregard, the current effective rate on £20,000 is 6.75% and the new rate will be 2.6%. For a married couple the existing rate is 3% and nothing is taken into account on £20,000. The change is very progressive. I can give the Deputy a table.
I accept the effective rate. However, for income over the figure of £30,000, the actual rate is more than 20%. I do not seek sympathy for people in that situation but this is a loose end which should be tied up.
I endorse the view of the Minister that elderly people should be encouraged to lodge their money in financial institutions rather than having it in——
——offshore accounts?
Certainly not in offshore accounts.
I can give the Deputysome illustrative figures. A couple on £12,000 will gain £10 per week extra, a couple on £18,000 to £19,000 will gain £16 per week, a couple on £24,000 will gain £18 per week and a couple on £26,000 to £27,000 will gain £20 per week, and so on. The improvements are substantial.
I accept that there has been an improvement. An objective of the campaign was to encourage elderly people to put their money on deposit and not to keep it in their homes. I recall a parish priest in Achill speaking of elderly people keeping their money in biscuit tins and an idiot journalist in the Sunday Independent sneering at the idea. The parish priest, of course, was describing reality. This proposal will encourage those who might be inclined to keep large sums of money in biscuit tins to lodge it in a safe place. I will not press the amendment.
Money is being kept inunsafe places. I recently visited a pensioner who, on crutches, produced a 7-Up bottlefrom under the back of his tigín. Quiteingeniously, the bottom had been cut out of one plastic bottle, the top out of another, the two joined together and £11,000 hidden inside. The money was immediately lodged in a credit union.
Will the same means test of capital applyto unemployment assistance? If so, I amconfused. The explanatory leaflet, on page 7, states——
The change was made since the leaflet was printed. We added unemployment assistance.
The leaflet states: "These changes include the first £10,000 being disregarded and capital in excess of this amount being assessed." The last sentence states: "A single person with capital of £2,000 who is receiving unemployment assistance will gain £3 per week." Does capital of £2,000 not come below the level to be disregarded?
A person on unemployment assistance will gain a payment.
How can that be? Capital of £2,000 must be disregarded.
For unemployment assistance, the first £100 was disregarded.
What is the disregard now?
It is now £10,000.
The first £10,000 is disregarded for unemployment assistance.
Capital of £2,000 was assessed but that will no longer be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
Farm assist was presented as the answer to the problems of the rural poor. I was one of the few people who raised questions about it but the Minister and his colleague in my constituency beguiled the IFA and others into supporting the scheme. The results I predicted followed and payment was cut from a substantial number of people. More than 1,000 farm families had their farm assist payments reduced or cut completely. The reduction of 80% to 70% is some improvement but it should be reduced further to 60%. This would make up for the hardship caused by the introduction of this scheme last year to those 1,000 families. I am sure Deputy Crawford will also wish to comment on this section.
This matter was comprehensively debated yesterday.
I will say no more except that I was gravely concerned about the farm assist scheme when it was introduced and my fears have been realised. There are now more than 1,000 people around the country who fully accept the dangers as I pointed them out. The reduction from 80% to 70% is an improvement but to compensate it should be reduced to lower than 70%.
I wish to ask a couple of elementary questions. The Minister announced the scheme twice last year. He told us the number of extra million pounds it would mean to farmers and the number of extra thousands of farmers who would be included. He then changed the criteria to bring it back to 1 April or thereabouts.
To help them.
The reality is that of the 7,301 people who were in receipt of either farm assist, widow's or widower's pension or whatever at 31 December 1998, more than 1,000 were removed from the scheme by the end of 1999. An increase of approximately £2 per farm family means there are 1,500 new recipients and that 1,000 are removed from the scheme. Given the statement made by the Minister and the advertisements by a former colleague in the IFA, an organisation of which I am still a member, I am disappointed it accepted this. It was lead to believe that this scheme would help. The number of individuals who have come to me and to colleagues of the Minister questioning the way their means was calculated is unreal. I mentioned yesterday the case of an old age pensioner found to have two cows and six bullocks who had his pension reduced by about £3,000 per year. Officials in the Department must examine the means assessment procedure. This is the main problem. The section provides for a reduction in the assessment rate from 80% to 70% and Deputy O'Keeffe has suggested it be reduced to 60%.
We must realise that farmers took an enormous drop in cattle prices and in incomes generally last year. If the income position is rectified it may mean assessment in two years' time. To tell a farmer he should not have had to buy meal last year or that he should not have had extra veterinary expenses is not putting money in that farmer's pocket. The Minister's colleague in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development admitted freely that this has not worked. It has been a farce. Before it is too late will the Minster look at the assessment?
While there are only 7,400 persons approximately involved in the assessment, there are probably another 10,000 women and children involved with them. The Minister advised that millions of pounds were available for a scheme that never got off the ground. I ask the Minister to look at how the assessment is arrived at, to rectify its anomalies and allow his personnel on the ground to treat farmers with dignity and ensure they have sufficient money on which to live. The reality is that the old scheme may not have been reassessed for some time but many of its recipients used it to improve their lot and it worked. The new scheme works against anybody who tries to make improvements. That is wrong. It should be like FIS. Will the Minister examine how the means test is carried out and ensure it is carried out evenly across the country?
I welcome the changes made by the Minister and hope some of the farmers who lost farm assist can return to the scheme. The scheme benefited a number of farmers who had not previously claimed unemployment assistance. For a number of years farmers were not assessed or reassessed but suddenly everyone was eligible under the new assessment. Some farmers in my constituency who were in receipt of £70, £80 or £90 per week suddenly were not entitled to any money. This caused much hardship for farmers. I hope the changes mean they can return to the scheme.
Many of the social welfare officers seem to have a chip on their shoulders about farmers and the way they carry out the assessment is much too strict. Given that they are very strict on the amount of money they allow for fodder, meal, repair expenses, renovations etc., I ask the Minister to look at that area. The assessment is too strict, otherwise the idea of farm assist is good. More often than not when the appeal is reviewed farmers get some money.
I introduced this scheme because of the difficulties in farming. Some months after its introduction, Tom Parlon said this was the major achievement for the farming lobby, 40,000 of whom marched on the streets of Dublin. He said this was the scheme the IFA and others had introduced as a result of that march. He was very complimentary in regard to the scheme.
In reply to Deputy Browne, the IFA closely monitors the assessment procedure and there is ongoing contact. The IFA, with the other farming organisations in the partnership talks, agreed to the changes being made and got all they asked except that depreciation of buildings be included in the assessment. In a social assistance payments scheme we could not in conscience allow capital assessment of buildings because at the end of the day——
Pushed your conscience by £2.
We succeeded in relation to the other issues. In this amendment we are being asked to accept a relaxation and to add, multiply or divide it as in this case. We have done all we have been asked except to allow the capital depreciation of buildings. We have fulfilled the commitments of the new partnership agreement even before it is ratified.
FIS might come back.
I wish to inform Deputy Crawford that those smallholders who transferred to farm assist receive a weekly payment averaging £83.06, an increase of £8.84 per week on what they previously received. It has been of benefit to many farmers. There are 2,127 new people in receipt of farm assist who were not in receipt of smallholders' dole. I totally accept that and it was made clear to the farming organisations, the ICMSA and the IFA, when they sought this scheme that it would mean a review of the existing smallholders' dole. They acknowledged that and it was obvious that there were people who would be reassessed. It is like everything, they were not declaring in recent times. That is probably our fault for not reassessing them on a constant basis. It could be said that we should request that the back money be paid back to the taxpayer for those years when they had extra means, but we will not do that.
When will this come into operation?
October.
Will the increases be applied automatically based on the existing assessment?
The increases in respect of the new changes?
Yes.
No, it will be desk assessment, as it is called.
Based on the last assessment for farm assist, will there be an automatic adjustment and will increases be paid in October?
I cannot say that will not happen in every case. These changes will occur based on the previous assessment, but new cases will be dealt with.
Is it much like the FIS? The Minister has a lot of contact with the farm organisations but some people tell me there are many farmers who could be getting payment but who have not made a claim.
There was a huge campaign in that regard. We came out publicly, which is unusual, and stated that the numbers were not what we expected. I am not suggesting that people overstated the position on the ground but we were surprised. Normally we are fairly good at estimating the amount of money required.
The number appears to be small.
It is increasing. I was just looking at the numbers and they have increased.
It is only half the number about which the Minster was speaking.
Yes, but in recent times it has increased substantially. I will give the Deputy the figures, and, obviously, this would take into account that the new system was being put in place. In August of last year the figure was 5,900 whereas in July it was 5,100. The figure for September was 6,500 and it was 6,800 for October. One would think that the increase would be larger in winter months. The figure for November was up by just 100 to 6,900 and in December it was 7,100, so it is creeping up all the time.
The Minister allocated X number of millions of pounds on two different occasions last year. How much of that money was saved? Will the Minister find it in his heart to lower the figure for the means test and allow that money to be paid out to those for whom it was intended?
All these schemes are demand led. While estimates might be made, it is what the scheme delivers that is important. We cannot say that we have X amount of money put aside. That is the way the system operates. If we had gone over the amount of money allocated, we still would have had to pay it.
How much was saved as a result of the failure of the scheme to work?
In effect, nothing because all this is estimated.
Obviously, an estimate was put to one side for this scheme. How much did the Minister save?
I cannot recall. I think the figure was about £15 million——
The Minister could recall a great deal earlier today.
It was £15 million pounds extra. We did not come near that. I do not know the figure.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendment No. 35 is out of order as it could involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 19, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both of the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of a special Fishing Family Assist Scheme to compensate for the total loss of earnings to east coast fishing families arising from the closure of large tracts of the Irish Sea fisheries in the European Union sponsored conservation programme.".
This amendment is related to amendment No. 35 and the fisheries assist scheme. I represent the premier east coast port, Howth, and as the Minister knows, because I believe his constituency is affected, east coast fishermen have been left in dire straits in the past four or five weeks since the closure of the cod fishery in a large box of the Irish Sea. This is a very large area off the coast of north County Dublin and south Louth. The annoying feature of this problem is that, while Ireland had two fisheries Ministers in the negotiations in Brussels which led to this outcome, Mrs. Rodgers representing the North and our Minister, Deputy Woods, representing the South, Mrs. Rodgers seems to have got a far superior deal. The part of the box used by fishermen in the North and in north Louth was very accessible to small boats. I am talking about 100 plus families who have experienced a massive cut in income as a result of this event, although I acknowledge that they proposed the conservation programme for the cod fishery a number of years ago. This area is famous for prawn fishing, and prawn and cod are located in the same part of the sea. The proposal that came from Europe effectively removes their livelihood until the end of April.
I realise the basic scheme is in place but as my colleagues have said in relation to farming, that is a poor safety net for somebody who may have lost 90% or 100% of their income. Deputy Seán Ryan raised in the Dáil a few weeks ago the issue of the Skerries and Balbriggan fishermen. There is a major safety issue involved in that also. If the 50 ft. to 70 ft. boats, which make up the main part of our fleet, have to sail three hours from the coast to get through this box, they are in greater danger of tragedy. Some of the fishermen I met a few weeks ago were on the verge of taking risks in order to secure some livelihood between now and the beginning of May.
In the past when the Minister, Deputy Woods, held this portfolio he came up with a special package in conjunction with the then Minister for the Marine. Is there something the Minister and the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, can do in this area, given that it is desirable policy? Being good Europeans, we have made a national decision to conserve an important species of fish, suggested by the fishing industry, but yet many people have been left in poor circumstances with virtually no livelihood for a large portion of the year. The Chairman, who represents the northside, will know from reading the local press that we are very upset about this matter.
Before the Minster replies, will he indicate how the fishing assist scheme has worked generally? Did many fishermen avail of it?
I will try to get those numbers for the Deputy.
I have a feeling that it has not been successful. My view in relation to fishermen, farmers, shopkeepers and others is that we should have family income supplement for the self-employed. That is the way to ensure that families are looked after. I strongly support the case of the Howth fishermen but I would not confine it to Howth. There has been a collapse in herring prices in the south-west which has caused enormous problems in the area. In other areas along the west coast fishermen have suffered either substantial loss of income because of dangerous weather conditions or, in some cases, fatalities. Fishermen generally are a special case and they would be far better looked after under a family income supplement scheme for the self-employed rather than a fishing assist scheme.
Deputy Broughan said something about the Minister, Deputy Woods, and the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources devising a system. We cannot recall any such scheme.
There was such a support scheme about five years ago. I am sure it was the Minister, Deputy Woods, when he was Minister for the Marine, who was responsible for it.
Not from the Department of Social Welfare.
No. I think it was a special package from the Department of the Marine.
It was at the instigation of the Minister, Deputy Woods, that the fishing assist scheme was added on to the farm assist scheme. We should make it clear that the social welfare system will never compensate particular sectors, whether they be farming, fishing or any other sector, for a downturn in their industry but it will assist low income fishing or farming families, or indeed unemployed families. It must be appreciated that the system cannot be used to bail out industries that are either going through a bad time or folding up.
The questions raised by Deputy Broughan should properly be directed to the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. There are measures under the various EU schemes. The changes I have introduced to the farm assist scheme will automatically apply to the fishing assist scheme. Any fisherman on low income would have received an extra benefit as a result of the different means assessment under the fishing assist scheme.
Developments in the EU over the past 30 years have had a detrimental impact on the fishing industry, with perhaps one or two exceptions off the Donegal coast. In the Howth area in my constituency the remit of the local partnership company and the local employment enterprise and support bodies end outside the peninsula with the result that a group of people who are badly remunerated are unable to access any of the self-help projects. The short-lived Government in Northern Ireland performed very well when it addressed this issue, yet the Minister, Deputy Woods, performed very badly, even with regard to serving the interests of his constituency. Many people believe he left that Department ahead of the wrath of the Howth fishermen and their families and of those in the Clontarf area of Dublin Bay. He is fortunate to have been moved to the Department of Education and Science because he left these people high and dry during his ministerial remit.
I hope to discuss this matter with the new Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey. Perhaps he and the Minister could jointly look at this issue. It will impact on the Minister's constituency, but it is not as dangerous for the people he represents as it is for those in my constituency. While some of my constituents can travel to Dunmore East and west County Cork, we have a serious problem.
I cannot let the Deputy's remarks go unchallenged. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, was an excellent Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. His track record in various ministries is second to none.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I agree with the section provided the Minister obtains information on the effectiveness of the fishing assist scheme. I have grave doubts about that.
We do not have the figures, but they are small.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 38 is related to amendment No. 37 and both may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 19, before section 20, to insert the following new section:
"20.-The Minister shall consider the feasibility of paying a uniform rate of child dependant allowance by increasing the different rate to the maximum rate and also the issue of extending child dependant allowances to recipients of unemployment benefit and other short-term payments in respect of children aged between 18 and 22 years who are attending full-time education and not later than 6 months from the passing of this Act shall prepare and lay a report on same before both Houses of the Oireachtas.".
My colleague, Deputy McGrath, has on a number of occasions made the case for a uniform rate of child dependant allowance. He has also queried why those on unemployment benefit as opposed to unemployment assistance cannot get a child dependant allowance for children over 18 years of age in full-time education.
In recent years there has been a consensus not to improve child dependant allowances, but to focus improvements on child benefits only. There is a case to be made to look again at that because of various changes, such as increases in incomes and levels of poverty among people who are on social welfare. Increases in child dependant allowances may have to be considered in the fight against poverty.
There are two issues at stake here and both are untenable from the Department's point of view. People with child dependants drawing unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit are entitled to a child dependant allowance at a weekly rate of £13.20. Single parents or other categories are entitled to a weekly rate of £15.20 while those in receipt of invalidity pensions or such like are entitled to a weekly rate of £17. It is untenable to categories of children in this regard. The Minister will say that to do otherwise would be to provide a disincentive to employment. If that is the case, why should a single parent receive a higher weekly rate than somebody on unemployment assistance? It will cost £45 million to provide a uniform rate and the Minister should be brave enough to do that.
The second issue is equally untenable - the Chairman has referred to this on previous occasions. A person in receipt of unemployment assistance with a child who is lucky enough to be in higher education will receive a child dependant allowance until the child has finished college. However, his neighbour, who has been employed for longer periods of time and has probably made more contributions, will be in receipt of a lower rate of unemployment benefit and will not be entitled to a child dependant allowance if his child is at college. That is untenable. It boils down to the difference that has arisen between short-term and long-term payments.
Recipients of long-term social welfare benefits, such as validity and unemployment assistance, can, if the child is in higher education, draw down child dependant allowance until the child is aged 22 years. Those in receipt of short-term benefits are not entitled to such allowance. That cannot be justified and I do not know why the Department insists on categorising people in this way. It takes away income support from families. Even if people are unemployed for only a short time they should be entitled to these extra payments if their children are in higher education. If they are in receipt of short-term unemployment benefits they will have had to make a painful adjustment from a higher income in their former employment and at the same time face higher education payments for their children. Despite the availability of fees and grant aid, higher education is expensive.
I ask the Minister to look again at this. I am unable to justify the present arrangement to people who present at my clinics. It needs to be changed and I ask the Minister to be a pioneer on the issue of child dependant allowances by removing obvious anomalies.
I support Deputy McGrath, especially on the question of college fees. My constituency has no third level college and my constituents face very high costs in sending their children to such colleges. If a person looses his job for a short period he cannot obtain any benefit to help in sending a child to college. It is a very serious matter. I ask the Minister to consider this proposal in the near future.
As regards the last issue, the Government is committed to looking at this and to doing something in the context of the new Programme for Prosperity and Fairness which it has entered into with the social partners. We hope to introduce something in the next or subsequent budget as a result of that examination.
I accept Deputy O'Keeffe's point that there may be justification for reconsidering freezing the child dependant allowances at 1994 levels in view of the fact there are fewer disincentives to work than there were. If I had a further £44 million in addition to the £106 million I put into child benefit, I would rather put it into the universal payment of child benefit rather than child dependant allowances. It would cost £44.5 million to bring them all up to the one rate. It would be better to put it into the universal payment of child benefit because it would build up the payment people get which would be retained by them, irrespective of what happens in their work.
That is not targeting the payment.
It takes into account the views of everyone, including Deputy O'Keeffe who said the best way to deal with child poverty is through the child benefit system. I fully accept that.
That is because it is paid to the mother in most cases and is more likely to get to the child. However, if it is paid through child benefit it will also be paid to the millionaires of this world who do not need it. Child dependant allowance, on the other hand, is targeted only at those on social welfare. They have already satisfied the means test, except for the insurance based payments, and have been identified as needing the additional money. Child dependant allowance is targeted at people who need it but child benefit is not.
There may be some justification for that argument but we need to build on the universal payment. My commitment is to increase it incrementally over the next couple of budgets. There is a commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to increase it fairly dramatically and this will require substantial expenses. That programme indicated the child benefit route rather than the child dependant allowance route and I must bear that in mind.
As regards tackling the work disincentive issue, the shift towards child benefit has been dramatic. In 1994 child benefit represented 29% of the total child benefit-child dependant allowance payment for a four child family. It currently represents 41% of the payment and it will rise to 47% from September.
If the values had not been frozen in 1994, what would be the basic child dependant allowance now?
I can get those figures for the Deputy.
It depends on inflation.
We have doubled the rate of inflation in most of the other payments.
They would be significant.
If we had done that, it would have reduced the amount of money we gave in child benefit.
Of what are those percentages?
They are a percentage of the overall child benefit and child dependant allowance payments. It is child income support.
Deputy McGrath was right that it is difficult to explain it to people.
I accept that.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendment No. 39 is out of order.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 19, line 36, after "'£300"' to insert "and the Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the effects of raising the respite care grant for recipients of the carer's allowance to £1,000 within 6 months".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 22 agreed to.
Sections 23 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 22, before section 27, to insert the following new section:
"27.-The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the implications of enabling part-time workers who have been in receipt of unemployment benefit for the prescribed period to continue to receive unemployment benefit payments based on their continued payment of PRSI since first commencing part-time work.".
This amendment arises as a result of representations by a group of ladies who are in part-time employment. They worked full time in a supermarket in Mullingar for a number of years and then they were given part-time work three days a week. They had accumulated stamps and were able to draw benefit for three days a week. Since they had 390 days for which to draw benefit, that allowed them benefit for 130 weeks. At the end of 130 weeks they sought further benefit because they had continued to pay stamps as part-time workers during that time and had accumulated enough benefits to qualify for further benefits. However, because there was no substantial loss in income, they are not entitled to these benefits.
These women believe that as this is a benefit payment the loss of income should not be a factor. It would also suit them to continue working three rather than five days a week, thereby creating jobs for others. Why should their income be substantially reduced to qualify for these benefits? It seems strange that they should lose out on their payments. Can they continue to draw benefit for the days they are not working when they have accumulated stamps over the two and a half years?
The purpose of the unemployment benefit scheme is to provide support for people who have lost employment or are unable to find alternative employment. In order to satisfy the payment a person must, among other things, satisfy certain PRSI contribution conditions and have suffered a substantial loss of employment. A person who has qualified for unemployment benefit and then takes up part-time work may qualify for benefit in respect of the remaining days of the week, provided he or she continues to be available for work on those days. In such a case where a part-time worker exhausts his or her entitlement to benefit, he or she may only qualify for repayment if a substantial loss of employment is suffered. Where a person fails to satisfy this condition, he or she may apply for unemployment assistance. There are no plans to change the conditions for entitlement to benefit in this regard.
In April 1991 social insurance was extended to part-time workers earning £25 or more per week. This measure brought 27,000 part-time workers into the social insurance scheme for the first time. It meant they were insured for the full range of social insurance benefits and pensions.
Changes in the benefits system were required to accommodate this group, one of which related to unemployment benefit. The purpose of unemployment benefit, as I said earlier, was to provide replacement income for those who lost full-time jobs. There are now many part-time workers, some of whom normally work only one or two days a week. They were not covered by social insurance. It was necessary to review the conditions of unemployment benefit to ensure they were in line with the scheme's objectives.
The new arrangements required the claimant to have suffered a loss of employment in order to qualify for the benefit. Initially, regulations provided that the employment loss had to be at least two days for persons normally working four or more days a week, and one day's loss for persons normally working one to three days. In March 1993 this requirement was reduced to one day in all cases.
Subsequently, with effect from September 1994, casual workers were exempted from the substantial loss of employment rule. Persons in casual employment and those on systematic short time are not, therefore, subject to the substantial loss of employment condition. Dockers and fire workers are deemed to be in casual employment. Casual workers are able to requalify for unemployment benefit by having 13 paid contributions at any stage after the 156th day, that is the sixth month of unemployment. In effect, this means that where there are 13 contributions paid between the sixth month and the 390th day, the claimant can requalify for a further 390 days of unemployment benefit immediately after the first 390 days have been exhausted.
I do not think the Minister appreciates the point being made and I do not think the ladies concerned will appreciate that there cannot be any movement on it. They feel they have a genuine case and I think there is a lot of merit in what they are saying. This is one of those clauses tagged on by the Department to disqualify people.
This returns to the question of insurance payments. Are they insurance payments or income supports? As the Chairman outlined, the payment of a stamp is pay related, so that one would be compensated for not working full time. It could be included in that definition.
I had forgotten, in relation to stamps and benefit as distinct from unemployment assistance, about redundancy payments. This issue was mentioned earlier. When someone receives a redundancy payment he or she can be disqualified from unemployment benefit for a number of weeks, based on the size of their redundancy payment. That hits at the heart of the payment of a stamp. A person who had paid stamps for 27 years received a redundancy payment of £45,000 when the company he worked for closed down. When he went to sign on he was disqualified from unemployment benefit for six weeks because of the size of his redundancy payment. However, somebody who worked with him, who had paid stamps for ten years and received a smaller redundancy payment, could sign on straight away.
Was it due to the size of payment or that he sold his job, so to speak?
It was due to the size of his redundancy package.
I have come across that.
If one is paying stamps one is paying into an insurance policy. A number of people were quite upset and annoyed about that. I took the case to the Ombudsman, who deemed that it was the social welfare rule and that the Minister was right. He said there was no justification in overturning the case. This needs to be changed. It is small-minded and leaves a very sour taste in people's mouths. That man had paid continuous stamps for 27 years. He is back at work as he got another job fairly quickly. However, he felt very sore that he was disqualified for six weeks after paying into this scheme for 27 years. It was a mere pittance for six weeks and amounted to about £110 or £112. That makes people very upset and annoyed with the system. Small changes can be made in those circumstances.
Yes, but they are not small changes in the sense that there are 270,000 part-time workers. Doing this for the ladies in Mullingar to whom the Deputy referred would open the floodgates. If the person who received the substantial redundancy payment had waited six weeks to make a claim he would have got the full 15 months.
It does not make it right that, of two people in similar employment, the one with the longer contribution record is penalised. The ironic part is that another company had closed six months earlier and all of its employees went on to unemployment benefit straight away, although some of their redundancy packages were bigger, because of a different interpretation of the rules by a different person. That is not acceptable.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 22, line 10, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) Subsection (2) of section 125 of the Principal Act is repealed.".
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 22, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsection:
"(1) The Minister shall consider the implications of-
(a) paying the respite care grant to all carers including those who are presently excluded by the means test,
(b) increasing the present weekly income disregard to £250 per week, and
(c) removing the disqualification whereby Carers in receipt of social welfare payments are effectively excluded from qualifying for a carers allowance, and shall report to Dáil Éireann thereon within 3 months of the passing of this Act.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 28 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 23, before section 29, to insert the following new section:
"29.-Not less than 3 months from the passing of this Act, the Minister shall prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on restrictions in the back to education allowance scheme applying to those on Community Employment or FÁS Schemes.".
I do not really know what this amendment involves. I will wait to hear the Minister's response.
I do not regard this as an appropriate measure for inclusion in legislation. There are other ways in which issues such as this, that is, back to education allowance for community employment workers, can be raised and debated in the House without the need for recourse to legislation. As the Deputy is aware, the back to education scheme is an administrative scheme and is not the subject of legislation. The primary reason for this is to allow a greater degree of flexibility in its administration and operation. Such flexibility is normally used to the benefit of the customer. It also allows us make changes to the scheme quickly where they are required.
Access to this highly successful programme is dependent upon the minimum attachment to the live register of six months. Periods spent on community employment and FÁS training schemes can count towards satisfying this requirement. However, up to now we have always insisted that, to qualify under the scheme, a person must be in receipt of a relevant social welfare payment immediately prior to commencing the approved course. In other words, a person cannot gain access to the programme directly from community employment or FÁS training.
I can see how this might give rise to anomalies and could encourage people to return to the live register solely for the purpose of gaining access to the scheme. I intend, therefore, to look at this matter and to have all the issues examined and a decision made in time for the start of the new academic year.
That is very favourable. I welcome the Minister's statement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 29.
Amendment No. 46 is related to amendment No. 45 and both may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 23, line 19, after "Fund" to insert "only with the express permission of both Houses of the Oireachtas following the enactment of legislation providing for the Social Welfare Reserve Fund".
These amendments arise out of our surprise when the Minister first published the Bill. While we are very strong supporters of the free schemes and their extension this year, there are serious niggling doubts in many people's minds in relation to the Minister's administration of the social insurance fund. When I spoke on Second Stage, I made the point that it is only a few short years since two members of the current Government, the Attorney General and the Tánaiste, said they would like to abolish PRSI.
They saw it simply as a tax on employment and they just wanted to get rid of it. Perhaps I have been a little hard on my colleague the Minister, Deputy Woods, former Minister for Social Welfare, regarding a matter in the constituency we both represent, but I remember he was one of those in the House who admonished severely the then Deputy Michael McDowell and the Tánaiste on this matter. He clearly exposed that essentially they did not have a clue about the social insurance or social welfare systems in that, being Thatcherites, they did not believe in such systems.
The underlying concern for people is that in the budget the Minister for Finance failed lamentably to give people on low incomes significant tax breaks and failed to reach the target of my party, which was that the minimum wage, which our colleagues of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Small Business are discussing, should be tax free. Instead of doing it through the tax system, which is the obvious way to proceed, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, who is ideologically close to the two members of the Government who were critical of the social insurance fund, wilfully refused to do this and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, as a leading economic commentator stated in The Sunday Business Post, dug him out of the hole that he was in. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, saved him. He was sent out by the Taoiseach once again to try to hold this ramshackle Government together. That is the reality and these amendments are prompted by it.
There are concerns in the trade union movement also, which I am sure came through in the debate on the new national programme, that there must be a supervisory board to keep an eye on this fund and that we must keep an eye on the people in Government also. There is considerable confusion about how this will be administered in the future. The budget projected a surplus of £650 million at the start of 2002 and this is clearly seen by certain people as a war chest which they could raid for current expenditure rather than for putting together a comprehensive programme of social provision.
Today's discussion has touched often on the concept of people paying insurance through their employment from their low incomes and that there should be a basis on which they can realise the benefits of that throughout their working career. I referred to it yesterday in the context of child care, that one could frame the social insurance fund in the future in order that people could come and go in the workforce if they wanted to take a year or two out to look after a disabled person in the household or a child.
I am unclear about the reserve fund. I think the Minister for Finance is making this up as he goes along. He and the Department of Finance, which needs radical restructuring, believe that people cannot be trusted to spend their own money and, therefore, they have put £5 billion or £6 billion aside. The Department of Finance is saying that the people will not be allowed to touch the fund, certainly not for social welfare purposes.
That said, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, instead of funding these desirable schemes out of the other side of the social welfare budget, seems to have stuck his hand in the jar without any concept of policy or programme, taken £60 million out of the fund and thereby depleted it. Maybe he did this deliberately in order that there is not a significant surplus in the year ahead, but what comes through in section 29 is that the Minister does not have a policy of any kind. The Department does not seem to have done any long-term strategic thinking in this regard. The public is fearful of the Minister's administration of the fund, which is now in surplus, and of what he might do with it in the future, particularly as it was his party that gave us the 1977 manifesto.
We are also fearful of what will happen to the social welfare reserve fund itself. It seems that the Minister had an opportunity, to which I know he may return in terms of the NPPI and the Pensions Bill later in the year, to make a real departure in social policy through the operation of this fund. All he has done is to grab a bunch of money out of it and, in effect, deplete it for reasons of political expediency on one level and to save face for the Minister for Finance.
These two amendments ask the Minister to ensure for the time being at least that any further disbursements like this will have the express permission of the Oireachtas, and that it should be the Minister's remit to come forward with a comprehensive plan for the development of social insurance which would take account of the contributions from my colleagues and me on the Bill.
I am delighted that my colleague has tabled these amendments. I tabled my opposition to this section, mainly to open a debate on it and to voice my concerns, which are along the lines of those of Deputy Broughan. There is a huge onus on all of us in the light of the new situation which is developing about the social insurance fund. Earlier I mentioned my concerns that there should be a proper investment policy regarding such a surplus. I did not want to see the social insurance fund raided merely because it happens to have gone into surplus. If this is the extent of the Government's thinking on the surplus, I am gravely concerned. There is no reasonable explanation given for the social insurance fund being raided in this way.
My recollection is that the total figure involved is between £70 million and £80 million. I am sure the Minister will understand that he and the Government act as trustees. This is not the Government's money - it is money which has been paid by and on behalf of the employees. On that basis the fund, when in surplus, should be properly safeguarded, invested and, if possible, grown through such an investment policy. As a lawyer, the Minister will understand my thinking on the trustee status of the Minister regarding a surplus in the social insurance fund. The wrong approach to adopt to any trust fund is to rob it and this is effectively what the Minister has done without any logical or reasonable explanation.
I am greatly concerned about what will happen in the future with further surpluses. I am not sure how many funds are involved between the social insurance, the reserve fund and pension funds, etc. All I know is that any such funds are not within the gift of the Government of the day. They are moneys which the Government, as trustee, holds and it must discharge its duty as trustee. That is why I feel quite strongly about the approach being adopted and have indicated my intention to oppose the section. In the meantime, I support the amendments, which are along the same lines.
Anything which is appropriate to the social insurance fund should be charged to the social insurance fund in the normal course of events. For instance, the free schemes, which are related to people in receipt of a social insurance pension, all derive from that and they are currently funded by the Exchequer, but they are perceived by many people who receive them to be an extension of their basic individual payments. Therefore, it is quite logical that they should be charged to the fund and not to the Exchequer. That was the rationale behind the change.
What about a person on assistance?
By and large, the vast majority of free schemes are related to pensions rather than assistance. From that point of view it is quite logical that the free schemes are diverted into the relevant section of those payments which relate to social insurance. That was the rationale behind our taking this action. Our basic aim was to ground the free scheme expenditure, relevant to social insurance payments, in the social insurance fund. People are suggesting that this is a sleight of hand and that, basically, there is no increase in the overall expenditure of the Department.
The other issues have some equally valid attachment to the social insurance system. With regard to the surplus, the suggestion about the establishment of a social insurance board originated with my party. If I recall correctly, we gave a commitment in our election manifesto to establish a board to manage the social insurance fund in the future. If the suggestion did not originate with my party, it certainly emanated from the programme for Government. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness contains a commitment to establish a social insurance fund board with representation from the social partners. One of the issues relevant to the establishment of such a board is the Government's decision to part pre-fund social insurance pensions.
I may be incorrect but I believe Deputy Broughan finds fault with the whole issue of building up a reserve fund for future pensions. However, that was the recommendation of the NPPI report and we have followed through on it. An interdepartmental working group is currently examining the legislative and operational issues surrounding the creation of such a fund. The role and supervisory structures of the board will, therefore, need to be considered in the context of the legislative arrangements, including supervisory structures.
Is it intended that it should apply only to public sector pensions?
It will apply to social welfare and public service pensions.
Is it only for public sector pensions?
No.
Mr. Matt Cooper of the Sunday Tribune seems to think that the social welfare reserve fund is only intended for civil servants’ pensions.
No.
There is no question of that?
No. It has been stated that the Government and my party do not trust the Irish people to spend their money. That is not the case. Members need only consider the radical changes the Minister for Finance, with the agreement of the Government, made in respect of occupational pensions in order to ensure that, on reaching entitlement, people were able to manage their money themselves rather than being obliged to comply with a regulated system. That is one of the hallmarks of the Government.
I must reject Members' criticism of the Progressive Democrats who, to be fair, are and will continue to be very strong supporters of the social insurance system. I have no problem with the Progressive Democrats in that regard.
The leopard does not change its spots.
Regardless of what they might have stated in previous years, while in Government - perhaps it is because of the influence of Fianna Fáil members of the Government——
They would do anything to do hold on to their seats.
——the Progressive Democrats have been strong supporters of the social insurance fund.
The Minister has not explained the position. He has, as it were, turned his back on Deputy Broughan. His defence seems to imply that Deputy Broughan is attacking the social insurance fund. It is the other way around. We are of the view that the fund should not be raided. What is the justification for raiding the social welfare insurance fund? I can think of only one reason for doing so.
There is no question of the fund being raided.
The Minister did not state that on budget day.
It was indicated when the Estimates were published.
It was not in the Budget Statement.
It was indicated when the Estimates were published. That decision was made well in advance of the Bill's publication.
Surely it was prompted by the appearance of a large number of Fianna Fáil backbenchers - the Chairman was not included among their number - on the plinth in front of Leinster House?
No, the Deputy is wrong in that regard.
I will check but I do not believe I am wrong.
Regardless of the timing, am I not correct in thinking that between £70 million and £80 million——
An explanatory note was attached to the abridged Estimates, which were published prior to the budget.
Is it not correct that the Minister is loading expenditure on to the social insurance fund that heretofore was carried by the Exchequer?
Only as it relates to social insurance payments. As stated previously, the free schemes and the other benefits we are including under the social insurance fund are referable to social insurance related payments.
Heretofore those payments were carried by the Exchequer
It was academic until now because, in effect, the social insurance fund was in the red. In effect, the payments were always made from Exchequer funds.
Now that the social insurance fund is in surplus, the first thing the Minister does from the point of view of safeguarding that surplus is to raid the fund and to transfer expenditure——
No, for total transparency in respect of the costs involved.
It is the opposite, it is sleight of hand accountancy.
It is not.
It is.
There is no benefit for us in doing it either way. However, the course we have taken is much more transparent because, in effect, those payments that relate to social insurance and any add-on benefits will be paid for out of the social insurance fund. Conversely, social assistance payments and the benefitsrelating to them will be paid out of Exchequer funds.
I accept that, but the consequence is that there will be a saving to the Exchequer of upwards of £80 million per year because of this change. Is it correct that out of the Exchequer surplus there will be a further substantial fund established to finance public service or Civil Service pensions? I refer here to the commitment to set aside 1% of GDP to be made up of the £600 million from the Eircom deal plus an annual payment for ten years.
The legislation is being drafted at present. If memory serves me correctly, I believe there will be a two-thirds/one-third split between social welfare and public service pensions.
The net effect will be that the Minister will save money for the Exchequer by drawing down from the social insurance fund payments totalling £38 million per year that, heretofore, were made by the Exchequer. On the other side, he is transferring additional money into the special fund for the public service. Therefore, he is raiding the social insurance fund to provide funds for the public service pension fund.
No, we are acting on a recommendation from the NPPI.
I am not against the establishment of the public service pension fund. However, I oppose raiding the social insurance fund to the tune of £80 million per year which, effectively, will form part of the provision earmarked for the public service fund.
It is not a raid.
Is it not designed to make the system more appealing to people such as Wim Duisenberg and the officials in Frankfurt who have been extremely critical of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy? Since we do not control monetary policy, the only way we can proceed is to control spending. Therefore, it is a sleight of hand.
They take the figure for gross expenditure, they do not take account of whether it comes out of the social insurance fund or the Exchequer.
I accept that but when considering the appropriations-in-aid, it might appear to an ill-informed foreigner that——
Duisenberg is ill-informed?
——it is not coming from current spending. We will be obliged to keep an eagle eye on the behaviour of the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. I hope there will be no need to engage in a serious investigation of this matter in the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 24, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on a comprehensive plan for the future of Social Insurance.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 29 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to raise with the Minister a number of points relating to this section. There are concerns among health board personnel regarding the changes the Minister is making in this section to the role of community welfare staff vis-à-vis the payment of supplementary welfare allowance. I received representations from SIPTU and IMPACT——
If I might interrupt the Deputy and shorten the debate on this matter, I am already aware of the concerns in this area.
I merely wish to point out that we are concerned that, under this section, deciding officers will be obliged to be very rigid when making decisions on major claims.
I wish to voice my concern about this matter because I have also received representations.
In the past, many public representatives called for the transfer of functions outlined in section 31 because people who lodged claims with my Department for UA, for example, often were then obliged to make applications for SWA to the health board. As suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the intention is to ensure those people awaiting decisions on claims should have their applications for SWA decided by my Department. This would make the administration of the system more efficient for the people involved.
With regard to the references made by Deputy Broughan to representations from CWOs, I have sent a letter to the union which basically guarantees that I will not implement this section until the matter has been fully discussed and agreed. My understanding is that the union has accepted the letter on the basis that this is an enabling section and that the regulations will be brought forward in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 26, before section 32, to insert the following new section:
32.-(1) The Principal Act is amended-
(a) in section 223(1) (inserted by section 14 of the Act of 1998) by the substitution for ’In this section and sections 223A, 223B and 223C-’ of ’Subject to this section, in this section and sections 223A, 223B, 223C, 223D, 223E, 223F, 223G and 223H-’,
(b) in section 223C(1) (inserted by section 14 of the Act of 1998) by the substitution for the definition of 'information' of the following definition:
"'information" means any personal data or information extracted from such data, whether collected before or after 5 February 1999.',
(c) in the definition of 'specified body' (as amended by section 27 of the Act of 1999) in section 223(1)-
(i) by the deletion in paragraph (k) (xxviii) of 'or', and
(ii) by the substitution for paragraph (l) of the following paragraphs:
'(l) the National Breast Screening Board,
(m) other than in sections 223A to 223C and 223E to 223H, the following-
(i) a recognised school or centre for education (within the meaning of section 2 of the Education Act, 1998),
(ii) a vocational education committee (within the meaning of section 7 of the Vocational Education Act, 1930),
(iii) an educational institution to which the Regional Technical Colleges Acts, 1992 and 1994, apply,
(iv) the Dublin Institute of Technology,
(v) a university to which the Universities Act, 1997, applies,
(vi) the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland,
(vii) the Further Education and Training Awards Council,
(viii) the Higher Education and Training Awards Council,
(ix) a person who provides, organises or procures a programme of education or training,
or
(n) such other persons as may be prescribed;’,
(d) by the substitution in section 223C for subsection (5) of the following subsection:
'(5) A person who knowingly seeks or transfers any information held by a specified body relating to another by using that other's personal public service number, other than where the seeking or transferring of information is provided for under this Act or any other enactment, shall be guilty of an offence.',
and
(e) by the insertion after section 223C of the following sections:
223D.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, a specified body may share such information, as may be prescribed, with the Minister for Education and Science where that Minister requires the information for the purpose of enabling him or her to provide education in accordance with section 6(b) of the Education Act, 1998.
223E.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, a specified body may share such information, as may be prescribed, with the Minister for the purpose of seeking from the Minister the personal public service number for each person in respect of whom the information is shared.
(2) Information received by the Minister under subsection (1) may be used by the Minister for the purpose of identifying the personal public service number for each person in respect of whom such information is received and for updating the Minister's own records in respect of that person.
(3) Where a specified body has sought a personal public service number under subsection (1) in respect of a person, the Minister may share such information, as may be prescribed, in respect of that person with that specified body for the purpose of giving that specified body the personal public service number relating to the person.
223F.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, a specified body may share with another specified body information relating to a person using that person's personal public service number, where that information, other than the personal public service number, is being shared in accordance with the Health (Provision of Information) Act, 1997.
223G.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, the Minister may share such information, as may be prescribed, in relation to-
(a) a house let for rent,
(b) a landlord or his or her agent of a house let for rent, or
(c) a tenant of a house let for rent,
with a local authority for the purposes of——
(i) assisting a fire authority (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act, 1981), in the exercise of its functions under that Act, or
(ii) assisting a housing authority (within the meaning of section 23 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992), in the exercise of its functions under sections 17, 18 and 20 of that Act,
in relation to that rented house let for rent, that landlord or his or her agent of a house let for rent or that tenant of a house let for rent.
(2) Information received by a local authority under subsection (1) may be used by that local authority for the purposes specified in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of that subsection.
(3) In this section-
"house" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992;
"local authority" has the meaning assigned to it by the Local Government Act, 1941.
223H.-Where the information shared between one specified body and another under sections 223D, 223E, 223F or 223G is found to be inaccurate, the specified body on making the discovery shall confirm with the person the correct information and advise the other specified body of the amended information.
223I.-In sections 223D, 223E, 223F, 223G and 223H "information" means any personal data or information extracted from such data.'.
(2) The amendment effected by paragraph (e) of subsection (1) applies to information used for the purposes of section 223D, 223E, 223F or 223G of the Principal Act whether collected before or after the coming into operation of the provision concerned.
(3) This section shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.
This amendment relates to data sharing. Basically what we are doing is providing for the bulk update of the PPSN to those bodies that are nominated in the Bill to allow them to obtain the PPSN from us. My local authority recently contacted my constituency office to see if it could obtain the details of all the old age pensioners in the area so that it could give them, or at least target them for, the automatic benefit of a waiver. I checked with my office and this was not possible because of the data protection requirements. What we are doing is allowing the bulk transfer of data from the Department to local authorities or other designated bodies.
There is also a proposal in relation to the tracking of early school leavers. The new provisions will allow the Department of Education and Science to track the progress of pupils and students through the education system, pinpointing the areas of the highest rates of drop-outs and early school leavers. This will enable the Department to target necessary supports and remedial measures at the areas of greatest need and to monitor their impact over time. The National Breast Screening Board, at its request, is being included under the provisions of the section so that information can be used for people's benefit.
There are 43,000 tenants in receipt of rent supplement under SWA system at any one time at a current cost of £113 million. Concern has been expressed, not least by the Committee of Public Accounts, that the accommodation occupied by some rent supplement recipients is substandard. One could argue that the State is facilitating landlords in profiting from letting such accommodation by subsidising the rental costs of the tenants concerned through the SWA system. Whether one accepts this view, persons on low incomes who require the support of rent supplements are entitled to live in accommodation that meets at least the minimum standards set down in law. The amendment will allow the Department to provide to local authorities or their agents details of the tenancies supported through the SWA system, including landlord details, to assist these authorities in carrying out their statutory responsibilities in relation to private rented accommodation.
We are also proposing to make a slight change to section 223C(5) of the previous Bill. This is a technical amendment which was requested by the Attorney General.
This amendment is designed to be of benefit to the people to whom the Minister referred. Will he provide assurances that the necessary protections which are already in place will remain?
They will remain in place.
On that basis I am prepared to agree to the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47a:
In page 27, before section 34, but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:
34.-The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of extending fuel allowances for pensioners from April to October.".
This amendment also involves the payment of the fuel allowance. Despite the existence of substantial research which indicates a high rate of fuel poverty and the fact that large numbers of households do not have central heating, struggle to pay heating bills, etc., the Minister has been criticised for being quite miserly in respect of this area during his time in office. I refer here to social welfare recipients who, perhaps through illness, require the provision of constant heat and who find it difficult to cope during the April to October period when the payment of fuel allowances ceases.
We have had a very cold winter, we always seem to have a cold snap in the run-up to St. Patrick's Day and our climate often remains cool until May. Last year, there were a number of very cold days in September and early October. The amendment requests that the Minister consider some way of extending the fuel allowance to those with disabilities or illnesses who require the constant provision of heat in the period to which I refer.
The Minister should, perhaps, investigate this entire area because a number of reports have been carried out into fuel poverty. Energy costs are again on the rise which has lead to an increase in the rate of inflation. Perhaps the Minister will consider this matter in the coming months.
To extend the payment to all pensioners by one week would cost approximately £1.8 million, or £46.4 million in a full year. It is estimated that payment of the allowance for a full year to all persons over 66 who currently qualify would cost £17 million. When I look at this every year I get representations from all sides of the House about the fuel allowance and that it is better to give a higher increase in the personal rate over a longer period - 52 weeks - than it is to give a higher rate of fuel allowance. I can do that in future years but it would only be for the period of 26 weeks, whereas giving a higher payment over the 52 weeks would be much more beneficial. That was suggested in the review of the free fuel scheme which was done some years ago - that it would be better to give the primary payments a higher increase.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 47b not moved.
I move amendment No. 47c:
In page 27, before section 34, but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:
"34.-The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of ensuring a right of formal appeal against all social welfare decisions from which an appeal does not at present lie.".
This relates to concerns a number of our Deputies have about the right of appeal in certain instances in the social welfare code. One specific example related to recent questions about the new invalidity pension for people taking up work on a CE scheme. The Minister has developed this over the last few years, but in a number of cases doctors have determined that the work was no longer of benefit to the person on invalidity benefit and on that medical report alone the person was excluded from taking up the position. There seemed to be no right of appeal. The Department said it would look into it, but a whole new area relating to people going back to work on invalidity benefit is being developed here. I said during Question Time that in my experience it has been very beneficial to people doing even a limited form of work. They are making a contribution to some community project. Is it the case that there is no right of appeal against a medical examination in this regard?
There are what are called statutory rights of appeal, which generally apply to all schemes. There some exceptions, such as the back to work allowance and back to education schemes as well as some recent ones which are non-statutory. My experience as a Minister is that one is better off not having these matters handled through the normal appeals procedure as there is greater flexibility. The appeals procedure under the statute is quasi-judicial and can be quite inflexible.
The back to work allowance and back to education schemes have quite a lot of flexibility and I have seen it used. In those schemes there is normally a right of review by an officer at a higher level and ultimately cases may come to my desk. Sometimes it might be easier for me to wash my hands and say that this was for the deciding appeals officer. I could say that in relation to the 900 to 1,000 people who have claims, but I still get representations from Deputies asking if I can do something in relation to certain cases. In relation to non-statutory cases at least I have some discretion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 47d:
In page 27, before section 34, but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:
"34.-The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of the local authority financial contributions scheme for the social assistance entitlements and secondary benefits of scheme participants.".
This relates to something with which the Chair will be very familiar and which operates in most counties - it certainly operates in our council area. We have the senior surrender scheme in relation to public housing - it also relates to an earlier discussion on capital and accessing social welfare entitlements - where if a senior couple sell a house to a local authority they usually make a donation of about one-third of that and are then usually given smaller accommodation, such as a senior citizen's apartment. Often for the first time in their lives they have acquired a substantial amount of capital, and though in our region people seem to spend it on their families, often that is to the detriment of their means test, qualifying for medical cards and so on.
It is a very good scheme in an area like ours where there is a finite amount of land and 7,000 to 8,000 families on the housing list. Also, a number of the new people who have come into the country - those seeking asylum and so on - are beginning to become eligible for that list as they have formal addresses. That being the so, is there a special case for the Minister to look at this in relation to the amounts of capital, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and local authority managers?
As a result of this issue being raised by the Chair at a recent Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and I have agreed to look into it. I have undertaken a review of the sale of residence provisions under my legislation. Those provisions allow certain people over 66 to sell their residences and to buy alternative premises, with the balance of the gross proceeds being exempted from the means test subject to a ceiling of £75,000. That is in place at the moment and obviously in the case of a couple, the spouse or partner must also be over 66, but as a result of the Chair raising this we are looking into this.
Will the Minister not just accept the amendment then?
No, we cannot because we are reviewing it. The other side of the coin, particularly given house prices in Dublin and people acquiring capital, is that people cannot still rely on social welfare if they have huge capital.
But there would be a limit. The Minister will know that the local authority has a limit on what it is prepared to spend. It is not going to spend £400,000 on a house in Howth.
That is why, if anything needs to be done, there will have to be co-ordination between my Department and local authorities.
Will legislation be necessary?
We do not know. We can change the sale of residence provisions which have been there since 1991.
We are having a serious housing problem in my area also. Though we have not gone down that route yet, we will have to look at it. However, it should be remembered that for a retired person to sell their property and know, in doing so, they will disadvantage themselves in relation to a social welfare benefit, is an automatic deterrent to them selling the property. The benefit to the local authority should be taken into account when balancing what one has to do in those circumstances. In local authority areas where there is little land available - particularly in the Dublin Corporation area——
A Deputy
If they were zoned there would be more.
Not in Dublin Corporation. They cannot do much. They have a serious land shortage.
Fianna Fáil rezoned the last land years ago.
The problem is that a person will ask what he or she qualifies for and if he or she will lose some of those benefits if they sell the house, though that will benefit the local authority by making a house available that would not otherwise be the case. It is wrong to penalise them in those circumstances and the review being spoken of should be concluded satisfactorily as soon as possible. The Minster will find that as soon as the disincentives are removed many people will consider a smaller house. I strongly support that proposal.
That review is nearing completion and I have given an undertaking to my party to revert to it when we have some proposals.
The Minister would be getting the Minister for the Environment and Local Government out of the considerable trouble he is in. He would be saving another of his colleagues.
A Dublin Deputy would agree that it would also help the Minister for Health and Children, as most Dublin people are on a contributory pension and the medical card is the big issue, whereas down the country the pensions might be non-contributory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 47e:
In page 27, before section 34, but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:
"34.-The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of relaxing the rule that a recipient of carer's allowance cannot claim another social welfare payment at the same time in circumstances where the recipient incurs additional expenses for example as a carer and a lone parent.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
With the Minister's amendments we have basically put in a new section so we are agreeing that the old section has been negatived or withdrawn. Amendment No. 47 stands as the new section.
Section 32 deleted.
Sections 33 and 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 28, line 5, to delete "and".
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
Schedules A to E, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.