Section 4, with Schedule B, provides for an increase of about 3 per cent in the weekly personal and adult dependant rates of social assistance payments. Section 4 (1) provides for an increase of £2 in the personal rates of payment, £1 in the adult dependant rates, an overall increase of £5 or 8 per cent in the weekly rate of carer's allowance and an increase of £1.10, from £4.90 to £6, in the living alone allowance payable to pensioners aged 66 and over. Section 4 (2) provides that the increased rates will be payable from various dates in early to mid-June 1996. The section deals only with increases in rates.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
The rates of increase in social assistance payments are inadequate. Personal rates of unemployment assistance are being increased by £2 per week, from £60.40 to £62.40. How can a person survive on £62.40 per week? For married couples, the rate is being increased from £87.90 to £100.90. It is virtually impossible for a married couple to live on £100.90 per week. For the second year running, particularly at a time when our economy is booming, there has been an inadequate response to social welfare requirements.
I am disappointed that the Minister is persisting with a notional rather than an actual figure for interest accrued on savings for means testing purposes. It costs approximately £2,000 to have a decent burial, something which has a long tradition here. Having disregarded the first £2,000 of savings, actual interest accrued should be taken into account. Will the Minister re-examine this matter so that people are encouraged to save money in financial institutions and not in their homes?
The rates of increase under this section are minimal. The Minister should have introduced reasonable increases to reflect our healthy economy.
I welcome the 8 per cent increase in the weekly rate of carer's allowance which will give some recognition to the important work of carers. On Second Stage I drew attention to the problem of accessibility. The main difficulty with the carer's allowance is that it is means tested. This matter concerns more than social welfare income and maintenance and was discussed with the former Minister, Deputy Woods, who introduced the allowance.
At that time I referred to the category of women who would have qualified for the prescribed relatives allowance but who do not qualify for the new allowance. I am broadening the scope of the debate but I ask the Minister to comment on this point. This increase is welcome by those who will benefit. The issue of means testing is of critical importance and I would like to know if discussions have taken place with the Department of Health on a health based payment which would not be means tested. Would it be possible to give consideration to the inclusion next year of women, who left full time employment to provide care and who qualified under the old scheme?
I think this is the section under which the Minister agreed to answer my question.
I did not agree to any such thing.
Did the Minister not agree to answer my question under section 4?
I said I would answer it under the appropriate section.
I thought the Minister said he would deal with my question under this section. If this is the correct section, Chairman, should I repeat my question?
What is the question?
It relates to the calculation of entitlements on the basis of the actual interest rate rather than a notional interest rate. The Minister said this was not appropriate under section 3 and that I should raise my question under section 4.
This relates to the one-parent family payment and the disability allowance and I indicated I would be happy to discuss it under the appropriate section.
The Minister does not understand my question. The point I am making is that the Department calculates income on the basis of notional rather than actual interest.
I have answered that question already.
The Minister would not answer my question under section 3 and will not answer it under this section. We are wasting time.
We would make real progress if Opposition Deputies raised questions which are appropriate to the section with which we are dealing.
The Minister said I should raise my question under this section.
If Deputies wish, we can spend the rest of the debate hopping forwards and backwards between sections but we will not make much progress in discussing the Bill section by section and teasing out whether provisions are adequate.
The Minister is deliberately trying to avoid answering my question.
That is not true.
When I raised my question under section 3 the Minister said he would not answer it then and that I should raise it under section 4. My question is straightforward and I would like to know if this is the correct section under which to raise it.
In order to take the Deputy out of her agony and to make progress I will repeat what I said on section 3. I answered her question under that section and said I would deal with it in more detail under the appropriate section. As I said, I am carrying out a fundamental review of all capital assessment schemes in the Department. We have introduced two new capital assessment schemes, disability allowance and the one parent family payment, under which there will be new rates, new disregards, etc. I said it was not possible to change these many schemes overnight because of the major costs and administrative problems involved. Hundreds of thousands of people will have to be reassessed under any totally new scheme which applies to, for example, old age pensioners or others. That was my answer on section 3 and it will be my answer on section 19 which deals with the one-parent family payment and the disability allowance. I would appreciate if we could return to the debate on rate increases and thereby progress the debate.
The Minister has still not answered my question. He said he would standardise the capital assessment schemes but I would like to know if Department of Social Welfare officials will continue to assess the income of an applicant for an old age pension on the basis of notional rather than actual interest. As Deputy Walsh said, this is one of the concerns of elderly people. If an elderly person invests £3,000 in a financial institution which gives a zero per cent interest rate — the present rate is less than 1 per cent — the Department will assess his income on the basis of notional interest. The point I am making is that they either get an income or they do not. The Department should calculate the income of applicants for an old age pension on the basis of actual rather than notional income. Will the Minister confirm that this is part of what he is doing in standardising the capital assessment schemes?
The Deputy knows that there is no proposal in the Bill to change the means assessment of old age pensioners. The reply to her question is, therefore, in the negative. There will be no change and these people will be assessed this year in the same way as they were assessed last year.
I welcome the increase in the carer's allowance. As Deputy Flaherty correctly pointed out, this scheme should be repeatedly examined to see if it can be improved and whether certain categories of people can be included. Difficulties have arisen in the case of families with two dependent relatives in need of full time care and it may be possible to include them in the scheme without incurring much extra cost. As Deputy Flaherty said, when the new scheme was introduced the people already in receipt of the prescribed relatives allowance continued to receive it. I ask the Minister to look at the scheme before Report Stage to see if certain groups might be usefully brought on board without any significant increase in costs. The general increase under the section is £2 per week while carers will receive an extra £3 per week on top of this. How many carers will benefit from the increase this year? The increase in short term unemployment assistance is from £60.40 to £62.40, leaving the basic rate still at quite a low level. Can the Minister tell us how many people benefit from unemployment assistance, short term and long term? At what percentage of the main rate is short term unemployment assistance? Would the Minister agree that this is one of the lowest rates and, as it affects a large number of people, it could have been improved somewhat further this year?
Overall the increase of 3 per cent is a big improvement on last year's 2.5 per cent. However, the people who got 2.5 per cent last year are still on the rate which related to the 2.5 per cent and have lost out by about 0.5 per cent in real terms. That is indicated by the Minister's statement that the projected cost of the increase in social assistance payments in 1996 is £56.9 million, bringing it somewhat below the 1994 level. It certainly is a substantial improvement on the £37.6 million allocated for this group in 1995 — the 3.5 per cent brings them at least to a more reasonable overall level of increase but does not make up for what they lost last year which was quite significant in money terms. The Minister's figures illustrate that quite well. It was £37.6 million last year and £56.9 million this year as against £56.1 in 1994 which, at today's levels, would be just over £60 million.
Can the Minister let us know the number of people benefiting from unemployment assistance, short term and long term, and the percentage of the main rate at which the personal rates now stand?
There were 203,000 people on unemployment assistance, short term and long term, in 1995, and they have reached 92 per cent of the rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. At 91 per cent last year and 92 per cent this year, that represents an increase of 1 per cent.
At the end of 1995 there were 6,900 in receipt of a carer's allowance. We expect about an extra 1,000 to avail of the scheme in 1996. That allowance is now at 99 per cent of the main rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare, an increase of 4 per cent over the rate last year. The carer's allowance was at 94 per cent of the main rate last year. It is at 99 per cent of the recommended rate this year, an increase of 5 per cent.
The carer's allowance is an important allowance. The question of developing that allowance is one about which my Department is currently in discussion with the Department of Health. Clearly, it is an area which needs to be addressed in a global way. It would not be advisable for the Department of Social Welfare to unilaterally develop the scheme without reference to the Department of Health which has a particular responsibility and concern for elderly people. As has been pointed out by Deputies on both sides here, those who are not cared for at home may end up being cared for in institutions, and institutional care is much more expensive than care at home. It has to be said, however, that there are elderly people who cannot be cared for at home — there is no other way of caring for them adequately except in a nursing home or in a hospital. Therefore, there will always be a need for institutional care. It is not a question of simply applying the cost of institutional care to the carer's allowance to have a better situation. In moving even partially from one kind of provision to the other, inevitably both will run in parallel for a time, and that is even more expensive. My Department is currently, at my request, meeting with the Department of Health to discuss the development of the carer's allowance and other services for people who need care, particularly in the home.
There is a need to look at the question of respite care for those who provide care, and at whether the carer's allowance is a vehicle through which income should be provided to carers. It must be borne in mind that the carer's allowance was introduced in the first instance simply to provide a social welfare entitlement to people who, because they were so long working in the home caring for a relative, did not have social welfare contributions and did not qualify for a means-tested allowance because the income to the household might have been above the qualifying limit.
The carer's allowance was an important development in the support for carers. We have to look now to see how it should be developed. Should it be maintained simply as a subsistence payment, or should it become an income, and if it is treated as an income, what kind of income? Should a carer be paid the rate which a nurse would be paid if working full-time in the home? These are questions that have to be addressed. It is not a question that can be addressed in the course of a once a year annual discussion on rate increases in social welfare. Perhaps it is an issue that the Select Committee on Social Affairs might, with benefit, address in the course of the next year. I would be more than happy to hear the views of the committee on that.
For the moment, therefore, in looking at the question of the carer's allowance and in deciding on how we should allocate available resources, we can take a number of approaches. We can increase the rate of payment. That would benefit those already availing of the scheme and those who would qualify for the scheme under existing rules. We could change the rules to make it easier to access the scheme which would bring more people in, or we could look at the question of improving the secondary benefits for carers. They are the three main ways of looking at the carer's allowance and how we might improve it.
It will be obvious to everybody that it is not possible to improve the scheme simultaneously in all three respects in any significant way. I opted this year for giving a substantial increase in the actual rate, bringing it to 99 per cent of the main rate as recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. It is a significant increase of £5 per week. Last year we changed the income eligibility and the kind of income that a cared for person might have while the carer could qualify for the carer's allowance. That allowed significant numbers to qualify for the allowance. We also provided a companion pass for the carer. I increased the payment this year. It would be a mistake to have a root and branch change in the scheme until such time as we have a developed view on how we will provide care for the elderly in society. I hope we will make progress in our discussions with the Department of Health and I will be more than happy to hear the views of Members on how the scheme should evolve. It might also be useful for the committee to discuss the matter with the Minister for Health.
It is estimated that there are 70,000 full time carers. The numbers receiving assistance should be increased. How many people benefit under the prescribed relative's allowance? I know one person who left her job and a salary of £18,000 per year to look after her mother-in-law on a full time basis. She will not qualify for unemployment benefit but she would have qualified for benefit under the prescribed relative's allowance.
Those in receipt of prescribed relative's allowance were not affected by the introduction of the carer's allowance. At the end of 1994, 420 people were in receipt of the prescribed relative's allowance and the number was 180 at the end of 1995. The scheme is being wound down and the carer's allowance is taking its place. As regards the numbers, our understanding is there are 25,000 full time carers and approximately 50,000 people provide care on a part-time basis. A parent whose child has a physical or mental handicap and attends a special school or rehabilitation centre on a daily basis is not regarded as a full time carer. The carer's allowance applies to those who provide full time care and who satisfy a means test. It has been suggested that the means test should be abolished and all full-time carers should receive the allowance. However, that would result in a four fold increase in expenditure. Some 6,900 carers benefit under the scheme at present.
The Minister indicated that 1,000 new carers will come under the scheme this year. To what does he attribute that substantial increase? What is the current cost of the scheme? Are the 6,900 carers in receipt of the full amount? It is crucial to have the cooperation of the Department of Health in any major development of the scheme. I understand the financial implications but in terms of freeing up scarce resources such as places provided by the Department of Health and the health boards it has the potential to make an enormous contribution. This is a good scheme but I am disappointed that it is limited in terms of the number of people who benefit under it. How many people applied for the carer's allowance and were refused?
The scheme could be expanded to encompass the 25,000 full time carers, many of whom have given up full time employment. These people made a double sacrifice.
If people lead healthier lifestyles they are less likely to be in need of hospitalisation. The Department of Health is doing what it can to encourage that. We have an ageing population and will, therefore, have an increasing burden of care. In relation to that area, we cannot seriously look at the question of savings in the Departments of Health or Social Welfare. We should look at how we can ensure that resources are spent in the best and most humane way.
In the vast majority of cases institutions provide very good care but it is hard to improve on the kind of care a person receives at home from a relative. There are not too many people like the woman to whom Deputy Flaherty referred who are prepared to give up an £18,000 a year job to look after a mother-in-law on carer's allowance. Nevertheless they are there.
I do not know whether you can differentiate between one carer and another simply because they opted out of a well-paid job. It is tied into the question I raised earlier of how we should treat the carer's allowance. Do we treat it as a subsistence payment or as an income which a carer should get for carrying out a function, the burden of which would be borne by the taxpayer — through institutional care — if the carer did not do it.
That is a debate which we have to engage in but I am not sure that we can, in equity, differentiate between one carer and another on the basis of their potential earnings if they were not doing the job of caring. The care provided by a person coming off unemployment assistance will be every bit as good as that provided by someone coming out of a well-paid job.
The scheme provides for them. They get an acknowledgement, an increase over unemployment.
I am not arguing that the case the Deputy is making does not have some validity. I am simply saying there are underlying issues which we need to examine. To put it in its starkest terms, do we want to pay a carer £20,000 a year for caring for their mother-in-law? Would it be better to do that than pay £50,000 a year to provide a place in an institution for that mother-in-law? Do we continue with the system of paying a carer's allowance to someone who is providing care to a loved one because they are a family member but providing an income to them in their right? At the moment it is at subsistence level. Those are the choices which society has to make. At the end of the day the taxpayer will either pay for it or will not support that kind of approach. We need to address those issues.
A question was posed concerning the number of claims for carer's allowance. In 1994, 2,950 claims were received, 1,810 claims were awarded and 903 were rejected. They could have been rejected for a number of reasons — either because they were outside the income limit or because they were not providing full-time care. A total of 96 people did not proceed with their claims.
Some 1,079 claims were terminated. That would be where the person being cared for died and the person who had been looking after them was no longer entitled to a carer's allowance. In those circumstances the Bill provides that unless they get a job they will revert to unemployment assistance at the higher rate, not the lower one.
Does the Minister have the figures for 1995?
No, I do not. A question was asked about the expected increase this year. It will arise from a number of factors. One is the fact that we made provision last year to include occupational pensions as eligible income on the part of the person being cared for. In addition we have a growing number of elderly people in our society who need care. It is a combination of those factors.
As I pointed out, we reckon there are 25,000 people being cared for full-time. As things stand, some of those would not qualify on the basis of the means test. If we broaden the means test and make it less of a hurdle to cross, we would obviously take in a proportion of those. It boils down to a choice of how you use the resources. Do we use them to increase the income for those already on the scheme, to expand the scheme to take in more while leaving everybody on the same rate as it stands, or do we improve the secondary benefits?
I have been under pressure to provide free travel for carers. Last year I introduced a companion pass for carers which I felt was a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.
As a result of the increase of £2 in this section the widow's non-contributory pension will be £64.50 per week. Can the Minister tell us what percentage of the main rate that will be this year? In 1995 the percentage was almost 94 per cent. In practice, widows whose children have grown up and left home — and who are left with a home to look after — can often be in the poorest of circumstances. We are talking about the means tested scheme as distinct from the insurance based scheme where you can have a separate income which does not affect your payment.
In allocating funds, would it not have been important to bring in people like widows and those on the pre-retirement allowance? The latter group is being means tested so we know they do not have any other source of income; if they do their payment is reduced accordingly. In 1995, people on PRETA were at approximately 94 per cent of the main rate. Can the Minister tell us what percentage both the widow's non-contributory pension and PRETA groups have reached this year?
All the schemes, including the widow's non-contributory pension and PRETA, have moved forward by at least 1 per cent. As I have already pointed out, the carer's allowance moved forward by 5 per cent. The widow's non-contributory pension and PRETA are now at 95 per cent of the main rate, which is 1 per cent more than last year. With regard to the assessment of means for the widow's non-contributory pension, the first £6 of any additional earnings is disregarded in assessing means. The assessment of any capital they have is more favourable than for the old age non-contributory pension which is currently assessed at a notional rate of 5 per cent.
The number on PRETA is about 15,000 while the number of widows is quite substantial. The Minister may have the number of widows in the non-contributory category. Our argument with the Minister is that while he has provided an increase of 3 per cent or £2 across the board, only those in receipt of the carer's allowance will receive a greater increase. At the end of this year, with the addition of 1,000 carers to the existing 6,900, there will be approximately 8,000 carers.
Our principal criticism is that the Minister did not get funds to give greater increases to widows, people on pre-retirement allowances or those on short term unemployment assistance who receive 91 per cent of the main rate. There is nothing in this year's budget to close that gap. As this has been a good year for the economy, progress should have been made in closing the gap for some groups. Widows who are means tested and assessed under the assistance scheme and people on pre-retirement allowance, who by definition are over 55 years and can often be quite disadvantaged are the most deserving.
Will the Minister comment on that and particularly on closing the gap for some of these groups?
As a former Minister, the Deputy knows most Ministers for Social Welfare take up office with the intention of trying to ensure that those in receipt of social welfare get an adequate income. I am sure he is aware it is not always possible to do that, given the large numbers involved.
We have followed a pattern in the past two budgets in seeking to enhance the income of families through child benefit, which we will deal with shortly. As at 4 January 1996 there are 15,300 in receipt of the pre-retirement allowance. There are 6,100 adult dependants so one must assume that 9,000 have no adult dependants. There are 4,100 child dependants entitled to the full rate of child dependant allowance and 400 on half rate of child dependant allowance giving a total number of beneficiaries of the pre-retirement allowance of 25,900 including adult and child dependants on full and half rate.
There are 19,400 in receipt of the widow's non-contributory pension. I am sure Deputies are aware that widows on assistance who have child dependants receive the lone parent's allowance as this would give them a higher income.
The Deputy queried the general adequacy of social welfare rates. I would very much like to have the resources necessary to provide the level of increases I believe are required. We have done a good job in the past two budgets in providing increases. In the years 1995-97 an additional £300 million or more has been provided which is not an insignificant sum. The increases in this year's budget may seem small in percentage terms but they are over and above the rate of inflation and are real increases ahead of the increase in the cost of food. The economy is being managed well and this ensures our interest rates and the rate of inflation remain low. It is wrong to say, as an Opposition spokesperson said earlier, that the good management of the economy is of no benefit to those on social welfare because, of course, it is. If the economy was being mismanaged or if international conditions were such that inflation and interest rates were being driven up, that would have a very clear bearing on the disposal income of those on social welfare. It is wrong to say that the good management of the economy is not beneficial to people on social welfare. The fact that increases are ahead of inflation is of value.
Despite the criticisms I am pleased that social welfare increases are significant. The INOU was critical of the increase but I would not expect anything else because, as the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed, its job is to seek to improve the conditions of the unemployed and the day it says the budget is perfect it will be out of business because there will be no more unemployed. As long as there is a reason for its existence it will be critical. It praised some aspects of the Bill but its criticism of the freezing of the child dependant allowance and the concomitant increase in child benefit difficult to comprehend. By providing increases through child benefit we are protecting not only the unemployed but the low paid. The increases in child benefit are in respect of all children and I repeat that the increase cannot be clawed back through tax. The increase in unemployment benefit can be clawed back through tax, through increases in the differential rent or, if a person is in a private flat, through the means testing of the rent allowance. Providing an increase in child benefit is a real increase which cannot be clawed back. I find the INOU's criticism of the shift in child support from child dependant allowance to child benefit incomprehensible. I had this debate with the INOU and it knows I disagree with it on this point.
On a point of order, Sir, may I remind the Minister that he is straying to section 5, which we have not yet reached. The Minister lectured my colleagues this morning about attempting to stray to different sections. I am reminding the Minister that this can happen accidentally.
I was referring to it in passing as I think I am entitled to do under Standing Orders. The issue was raised by the Deputy's colleague in quoting selective excerpts from the INOU letter, which I have and I am simply drawing attention to the positives in the letter. I informed the INOU that I disagree with one particular aspect of its letter relating to child dependant allowances, which are an element of unemployment assistance. I believe the INOU adopted the wrong attitude towards child dependant allowances.
The Minister's introduction to the debate of the question of the economy and the Government's marvellous management of it raises the issue of growth rates. At present the economy is virtually on autopilot. It was set on a good course before the Minister and his colleagues came into office and they are lucky to have that wind still behind them. The point relevant to this section is that while our economy is doing very well, social welfare recipients are not faring well. When times were bad, their incomes were generally a little ahead of the rate of inflation. However, given the present state of the economy, their incomes are just about in line with it. The Government has not improved its position. Various bodies, including the INOU and others, have made their positions clear. Extra benefits have not been provided. The Minister has merely maintained in line with the rate of inflation the income position of those in receipt of low social welfare payments, such as those in receipt of widow's pension, pre-retirement allowance and unemployment assistance. The gap has not been closed. If the position of those people is not improved when times are good, it will be very difficult to improve it when times are bad. I agree with the Minister that these are good times, all the more reason for the Government to do more to improve the position of social welfare recipients covered in this section.
I wish to clarify a reference I made to savings in care to which the Minister replied that the matter could not be dealt with in the context of his discussions with the Department of Health. I raised that issue of savings in care in the context of current practice. Some people in institutions could be cared for at home if additional financial State aid and support were provided. If such a system, which falls under the carer's allowance scheme, were developed further, we could ensure that people are not placed in institutions prematurely and that some of those currently in them could be cared for in the home, thereby freeing spaces for those in urgent need of institutional care. Those savings should be filtered through the system rather than used to meet financial needs in other areas.
I know the Deputy is a member of the Eastern Health Board. Having been a member of that board, I am aware of its good work in providing care for the elderly in the home or by way of various back-up services supported mainly by voluntary services in the community, the provision of institutional care and subventions to private nursing homes. However, some people cannot be cared for at home because their conditions are such that it is impossible for proper care to be provided in their homes, irrespective of how caring their families may be. Institutional care must be provided in cases where a son or daughter, because of domestic circumstances, cannot care for a parent in the home. We will need to provide a mixture of home and residential care for those who need it, particularly the elderly. There will be a growing need for such care because of our ageing population.
The only role my Department has in the matter is that it provides a carer's allowance for those who provide full time care for the people who need it. Up to this year we provided a carer's allowance equivalent to the long-term unemployment assistance rate. In this year's budget I increased the allowance by £5. That significant increase brings the main rate of the carer's allowance up to 99 per cent of the rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare.
I also indicated that I have initiated discussions with the Department of Health about the range of issues that need to be addressed in the provision of care for the elderly and infirm. This matter will require a range of responses. An elderly parent, whose children have left home and are rearing their own children, may live alone in a three or four bedroomed house. The choice facing that parent's son or daughter is that he or she could move in with the parent or encourage the parent to sell the family home and move in with him or her. Because of domestic reasons it may not be possible to select either of those options. In such cases the health board must provide care for the parent at home or in an institution. A range of care options exist, but in some cases they are limited.
We need to initiate a debate about how we will address the range of difficulties in the provision of care, which will increase in future. The problem will not be solved by doubling the carer's allowance. Such a provision would address only one aspect of the problem which needs a coherent response. We have opened discussions with the Department of Health to consider how we might proceed in that regard. I encourage this committee to initiate discussions on this matter among its members and with the Department of Health. I am sure officials in my Department would be pleased to discuss the matter with the committee during the year.
I do not accept Deputy Woods's criticism of the rates. Given that in all cases they have moved closer to the main rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare, the rates have not simply been kept in line with the rate of inflation. We have also undertaken an expert review on the adequacy of the income received by those on social welfare and I hope that report will be available later this year. It will provide a new basis for judging what the rates should be. We have asked that review group to recommend mechanisms by which the rates can be maintained at a realistic level. It is unfair that people, such as old age pensioners, are informed of their income only on a year by year basis. There should be some mechanism whereby once an adequate rate is established and is being paid, that rate is maintained automatically. We would not have this charade of a battle here every year about whether the rate is adequate if that were the case. It would be particularly relevant for those who are permanently on social welfare, either because of disability or their age.
On the comment about the charade here every year, it does not take much to know that £62 or £64 a week is not enough on which to live. I would welcome the expert review group's report and I trust they will recognise the reality for people, in this category. They are means-tested so we should know if that is the basic income on which they are living.
The Deputy, of all the Members on the Opposition side of the House, knows that single or married unemployed people or old age pensioners get assistance other than social welfare assistance. They get a medical card if their sole income is the single rate unemployment assistance or single rate widow's non-contributory pension and this is a significant benefit. If they are living in local authority housing they are on a differential rent. If they are in a private flat they will qualify for a rent allowance. A range of other benefits are available to them under the supplementary allowance and special needs schemes.
I am not suggesting that any of this is sufficient. I have never argued that it is sufficient but it is wrong to give the impression that a single, unemployed person living alone, a widow on a non-contributory pension living alone or an old age pensioner on a non-contributory pension living alone is solely and entirely dependent on their social welfare income.
The Minister would want to be very careful because listening to him, I might as well have been listening——
To yourself?
——to people who over the years were very much on the right in adding a medical card to £62 or £64 per week. One must be sick to get any benefit from a medical card and we do not want people to be sick. We want them to be healthy and well. Of course, we are all aware of the marginal extra benefits. However, I warn the Minister not to stray too far to the right side of the pitch because he has been identified sufficiently with it at this stage. I am surprised he would even make the point that there are little scraps going with the assistance.
Deputy Woods should ask any widow who has a medical card, any unemployed person who has a medical card——
Of course, they are delighted.
——or any carer who has a medical card whether they regard it as a scrap. He should try to take it from them and he will soon know whether they regard it as a scrap. We know from evidence that the biggest fear the unemployed have in taking a job is that they may lose their medical card. As a result we provided in this year's budget that people on long-term unemployment benefit who take up a job can retain their medical card for up to three years. To describe the medical card as a scrap——
There is a difference between perceptions and realities. The reality is that one must be sick to benefit from or make use of the medical card.
That is not true. One does not have to be sick to visit one's doctor.
The Minister should be very careful at this stage. He is digging deeper and deeper with his right hand.
Doctors encourage people to visit them on a regular basis to avoid developing an illness. For instance, they encourage elderly people to visit them in the autumn to get shots against flu during the winter. Those people could not get those shots if they did not have their medical card.
Every Deputy knows that the medical card is available to anyone who is on as low a payment as this. They have it as a right because they are means-tested and are on very low incomes. Their problem is that their incomes are too low. I would not try a diversionary tactic, such as talking about rent allowances, differential rents and so on, to get away from the basic fact that the rates are too low. That is what applies to a widow on a means-tested pension or an old age pension. They will retain the medical card even if they get significant increases in the basic rates. The Minister should not try to divert attention from the basic rates by pointing to these minimal extra benefits because their cost to the Exchequer is minimal.
I will remember all that if the Deputy is ever back on this side of the House.
I have no problem with that because I feel very strongly about it. I would never make the mistake of throwing up some right wing arguments to defend very low rates. We will strike it all from the record if the Minister wishes.
Any Deputy who suggests that mentioning a person has a medical card is a right wing argument either has a shallow view of the right wing or——
The Minister should not try to twist his way out of this. The point is that all these people are entitled to medical cards; they have them and they will keep them, even if they get significant increases because they are on means-tested incomes.
Question put and agreed to.