Deputy Noel Ahern is in possession and has 12 minutes remaining.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This is the second Social Welfare Bill to be introduced since the introduction of the budget. Most of the welcome increases in payments announced in the budget have already been put through. It is great that these increases are being introduced so early in the year. It was only seven or eight years ago that budget increases were paid to social welfare recipients in late July. Governments and Ministers have since tried to move the date of payment forward. Initially it was moved forward by a week or two and by 1995, payments were being made by mid-June. By 1998, payments were being made in early June and further progress meant they were paid in later years by early May. Last year, payments were made in early April and this year they were made on 1 January. There is no doubt that people on social welfare payments have done very well in the past five to seven years, particularly when one considers that in 1994 they received their increases in late July whereas they now receive them from early January.
There is no doubt that the Minister has done extraordinarily well in recent years, particularly when one considers that the total amount distributed in social welfare payments has risen from £4.5 billion to £7.4 billion this year. There will also be an additional package of £850 million in 2002. The cry of those who cater for the needs of poorer people in recent years has been that the social welfare package did not match the tax package. This came about as a result of different circumstances. It is good that the social welfare package for this year is on a par – if not greater than – the tax package.
People on social welfare payments have done very well in recent years. More than 100,000 people, many of whom were long-term unemployed, have been taken off the live register. Enormous progress has been made. When Opposition Members refer to life and progress in recent years they often talk about a drop in people's quality of life. However, comments on quality of life are biased by who is doing the judging and whom they are judging. If we consider a well-to-do, upper middle class family, whose children may have been reared to qualify as doctors, accountants, solicitors and barristers and who may have been immune to the vagaries of recession and every day life that effect everyone else, then the past two years or so may have led to a reduction in their quality of life particularly if this is judged in terms of the time spent sitting in traffic, etc. However, I represent a constituency in which there are pockets of under privileged people. If we consider this matter from the point of view of the families in these areas, seven or eight years ago the fathers were long-term unemployed and their children got up each morning and saw them lying in bed or hanging around the house. These people had no hope, no motivation and nothing to do. Now, those kids see a totally different life. They see their fathers and, in many cases, their mothers also going out to work and making a useful contribution to their family, their community and their country. The spirit, motivation and lifestyle of those kids has been transformed and marvellous improvements have been made in that regard. Without focusing specifically on any area, there are certain well known tower blocks in my area. A frequent complaint which the local authority has had to meet in the past 18 months is the need for extra car parking spaces at those tower blocks. Ten years ago, it was a novelty to see a car outside one of those blocks but now extra parking spaces have had to be provided in response to pressure from the residents, so somebody must be doing well. Those people would be classified as poor and under privileged and now their quality of life has been greatly improved. Those who comment unfavourably on that situation tend to view it from an upper middle class point of view.
There have been enormous increases in child benefit this year and last year. This year, the payments will be made in May and backdated to April. They have been brought forward by five months, compared to previous years. Organisations such as the Combat Poverty Agency recognise and appreciate the Government's action, particularly over the past two years, in targeting child benefit. The real effects of poverty are felt by families and that measure has greatly improved their situation. Old age pensioners have had considerable increases and that has been entirely due to political action, not from any of the organisations outside this House, those in the voluntary sector or platform of the PPF. Those groups do not seem to shout for the old age pensioners. When we said, five years ago, that we would raise the old age pension from £74, as it was then, to £100 over a five year period, there were sceptical comments from the Opposition side that we would not achieve that. Yet, at a time of low single figure inflation, not alone have we reached £100 but we have reached £116. The yearly increases have been very significant – £10 this year and last year and £7, £6 and £5 in the preceding years. One can compare that to the performance of the rainbow Government – £3, £2.20, and even £1.80 in 1995.
Perhaps people on the Opposition side deserve some sympathy in their efforts to find a few valid points of criticism to offer. It is really very difficult for them but one can only do one's best. While I have had not had any training in the acting profession, others have and no doubt they will put on a show. However, one detects that their comments are rather muted and of the tongue in cheek variety. The increases have been enormous and that is only right and proper. I hope the next Government, of whatever composition, will continue that trend. The elderly in our society are the most deserving. They put their shoulders to the wheel and made sacrifices when conditions were not so good.
A few speakers referred to carers and their association. The number of people on carers allowance has more than doubled in the past five years to the present figure of almost 20,000 and many others have benefited from the carers' tax allowance which was introduced three years ago. We would like to extend it – one will always find people doing a great job in caring but not getting any recognition for it. I draw a distinction between the Carers' Association and the people I meet who are very genuine, sincere carers. My priority, at this stage, is not necessarily the income disregard but rather to give some recognition and payment to people who may be in receipt of another social welfare payment. That is a far more pressing cause, but the Carers' Association has not pursued it at all. That body seems to be totally influenced by a few of its leading members who are pushing their own case, to the exclusion of those already on social welfare benefit who are the really genuine carers, including widows, long-term unemployed or people on invalidity benefit. They do a marvellous job and they are the people who should get some recognition and payment, even if only the respite care annual payment of £500 as an initial payment. The Carers' Association seems to have been taken over by a clique within its membership and it seems it does not press the interests of the majority of carers, the people I meet who have the greatest need.
The social welfare increases in recent years have been particularly beneficial to women, including widows. The increase in the qualified adult allowance last year and this year has been marvellous, as have the payments to those in the pre- 53 category. I know of an 87 year old woman who got her pre- 53 payment last year. She had been married at 24, her husband was an ESB officer and had a reasonable salary but now, at 87, she has got her first payment in her own right, in her own name. It is not simply a matter of money, as her husband has a good pension from the ESB, but rather the recognition in the form of a payment in her own right after all of 63 years, which gave her great joy and pleasure.
I compliment the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs on introducing payments which recognise the hard work which women have done in the family home over many years. I hope the initiative which has been taken in relation to the qualified adult allowance will continue. While there has been much emphasis on individualisation of the income tax system, we also need individualisation of the social welfare code so that the spouse, usually a woman, will have proper recognition in her own right. Issues concerning payments to widows arise frequently in the Joint Committee on Social, Community and Family Affairs and I agree that widows deserve to have their position improved. In a recent presentation, the question was asked as to what increase could be given on payments to widows if workers were given the option of paying 0.1% extra in their PRSI contribution and the figure was of the order of £50 per week. Rather than simply calling for an increase by reference to historical payments, something along those lines should be discussed, whereby people could have the opportunity of opting for an extra PRSI contribution for that purpose. Many people recognise that widows deserve better assistance and I believe many would make that contribution if given the option. I hope the idea will be followed up by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs.
I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Caoláin. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I am glad the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs is present. I compliment the officials in his Department, whom I have found most courteous, helpful and efficient in any dealings I have had with them. Departments are often criticised in this House and where credit is merited it should also be given. Social welfare fraud was debated yesterday and Department officials often have to deal with people who are defrauding the system who must be dealt with firmly. The problem is that sometimes genuine people are dealt with too firmly which can lead to hardship, worry and stress. I ask that this be taken into account so that people who genuinely make mistakes or are totally innocent and are being asked questions are spared stress. Many people get worried when officialdom comes knocking. That is not to say we should take it easy on those who are setting out to defraud the system. We should treat those people firmly.
Much has been made of the quality of life issues to which the previous speaker referred. We have perhaps turned from a society into an economy and there is a struggle between being a community based society and being driven by economics. When a society is being driven by economics very often the human factor gets left aside. This is particularly evident when we deal with families and children. Child care costs have more than doubled since 1998. The main issue regarding child care is the provision of places. It is causing huge stress in families. It is only right that we compensate families by increasing child benefit and I acknowledge that it has been increased dramatically in recent years. If it had not happened, families with children would have found it impossible to carry on. At present they are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. In many cases both parents have to work outside the home because of the costs of providing housing.
Under this Government, the cost of providing housing has soared as have the costs of child care. Many families have to leave their homes at 7 a.m., pull children out of their beds and travel long distances in heavy traffic to child care facilities – if they can find them – perhaps eating their breakfast in the car on the way. This is surely having a detrimental effect on their quality of life. Even primary school children are coming home from school in the evening and there is nobody home – they are latch key children. This is also causing major problems and stresses for families and we must start addressing the need for proper child care otherwise we are storing up all kinds of social problems for the years ahead. I have come across cases where people are paying up to €1,000 per month for two children to be looked after. In this context it only right that child benefit be increased.
I am trying to work out the logic of the statement in the press release issued by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs which refers to the remarkable turnaround in the economy as a result of the Government's prudent management. It led to an accumulated surplus of more than £1 billion – as it was in the social insurance fund – which was then used to balance the books. Commentators will want to find out why, at a time of unprecedented economic activity, the Government managed to finish its term with a huge deficit which seems set to grow further. Unfortunately the people who suffer when this happens are the people at the lower end of the ladder. The Government has turned the economy around but we are now facing major problems indicated by the need to raid the social insurance fund.
I draw attention to the plight of unmarried mothers renting houses and in receipt of rent subsidies and who, if they marry or have their partner living with them, will lose that benefit. There are situations where women and their husbands to be or boyfriends have to live apart – and must move in at night clandestinely and under cover of darkness. This situation is not good and must be examined. We must assist couples who find themselves in the terrible predicament whereby, if a woman is living in a house and in receipt of rent subsidy with one or two children, she cannot afford to co-habit with her partner because that would make them worse off financially. Could the Minister address that when he makes his final remarks?
Some work is being done on community development projects across the country but I ask that more be done. We must drive this initiative. We have a problem in that teenagers between the ages of 12 and 16, 17 or 18 have nowhere to go and nothing to do in the evenings. I acknowledge that sporting clubs are doing great work for younger people across the country but they need to be given more resources. I am referring to a youth service. We have a large population of young people and they have a right to go out at night, socialise and meet their friends and peers safely. However, there is nowhere for them to go except public houses and street corners. If they hang around the streets people will complain about noise and older people will be intimidated so we need to tackle this issue.
Young people deserve to have youth clubs and facilities where they can get involved in projects and have discos and it important that we facilitate that. I ask whatever Government is in power after the general election to address the area of services for teenagers between the ages of 13 and 18. The youth organisations are doing great work but they are not adequately funded. The community development projects are helping in some ways but they need more help and assistance.
Third level education costs is an issue which is arising more and more. Young people are finding it more difficult to survive at third level. Their college grant often barely covers or does not cover the accommodation costs and young people have nothing to fall back on. Our colleagues in the House will suggest they go to the Society of St Vincent de Paul or some other organisation for assistance but we need to start focusing on this area as people are dropping out of third level education because they cannot afford to continue. Some students have to work in part time jobs for the same reason. We need to look at this neglected area from a social welfare perspective.
Medical costs form a big issue for families. A visit to a GP can cost €35 and often families do not go to GPs because they cannot afford it and wait until the last minute when it is too late. We need to examine medical costs – particularly where children are concerned – and do more in the area.
I have mentioned the main issues I am concerned about as well as some others including child care, the cost of housing and unmarried mothers and the pressures they are under. There is another issue which concerns widows. A widow on a non-contributory pension may be a young woman who wants to take up employment but will find that the payment is reduced if she does, so there is a disincentive for these people to take up work. Perhaps something could be done in that area. Perhaps the payment could be continued for a certain length of time or the widow might be allowed to receive the payment and earn a certain amount of money as well. I know a number of widows who cannot work because they will be financially worse off if they do – especially those in receipt of a non-contributory widow's pension. Perhaps it is something which the Minister could address.
I wish to raise a number of points in regard to the Bill before us. As I stated at the time of the debate on the budget measures, I welcome the increases in child benefit. However, unlike some payments that were brought forward to the start of the new social welfare and tax year, child benefit increases only come into effect as of April of this year and recipients have to wait until May to receive payment. Mothers and children are equally deserving of having their allowances brought forward to the start of the year. The early months of the year, particularly the January to March period, is the time of greatest financial hardship for many families as the outlay of the Christmas period leaves them struggling. A January increase this year, rather than an April one paid in May, would have made a significant difference at a time of great financial distress. It was a missed opportunity and one I note with regret.
The repercussions of the euro changeover also need to be highlighted. The changeover has undoubtedly brought about an increase in the real cost of living. This is instanced in many ways, including in terms of fees paid for services to a multiplicity of agencies. Five pounds is often regarded as €10 and the small coinage is viewed as more of nuisance value than of real value. I am concerned that may well have been the intention and due to its almost valueless nature, both in terms of size and buying power the smaller coins may ultimately be withdrawn. I fear there is an agenda towards that aim both here and in other European countries where in at least one case the lower coinage valuation has not been introduced. I have no doubt the circumstances I have described were anticipated.
I remember the previous currency changeover in 1971. I was a cashier in a bank at the time and recall the difficulty of handling two different currencies. The situation was made more demanding then because we were changing from a pound with 240 pence to one with 100 pence. At least the current equivalence was not so problematic. The promises made that the euro changeover would not have any effect on the cost of living does not hold up to scrutiny. There is a long list of areas that are not taken into account such as visits to a doctor's surgery or what one presents to a priest for the signing of a mass card. One does not usually jingle coins at these people and a €5 note does not seem to satisfy in the way £5 might have done in the past, or whatever multiple of same. So much has been rounded up that it makes a nonsense of Government spokesperson's claims that all such instances would be challenged and reversed.
Many claim that the increases introduced in January were something to which they were entitled, in any event, and that it was only a coincidence that it ran in line with the euro changeover. That has to be challenged. There should have been some embargo on increases in every area over a period of time when the euro came into effect. What measures does the Minister intend introducing now to compensate the most vulnerable in society for this extra strain on their already over-stretched entitlements. Some further measure is required at this juncture over and above those announced in the Budget 2002 address in order to compensate people who find themselves in straitened financial circumstances, the people who are most deserving of our support and compassion.
I would appreciate if the Minister would respond later to what I perceive are anomalies in the system that are a cause of concern to me. Widows and widowers are entitled to additional benefits with their payments, such as free telephone rental, free television licence, free ESB units etc. I agree that these payments should be made, irrespective of age, but the case of widowed people is in stark contrast to that of lone parents. In many parts of the country a single-parent family can live beside the family of a widowed spouse with the same difficulties that life presents, but because one has lost a partner due to accident or ill-health and the other does not have a partner they are treated differently. This merits re-examination in regard to the basic similarity of being the sole parent struggling to meet the needs of children. Why is there not parity between the status of widow and lone parent and why do we draw a distinction? Are they not both dealing with the same set of problems presented by life.
Another anomalous situation is that of those who would otherwise qualify for additional supports but who are denied because of the permanent or occasional presence of a family member in the home. Such people have to forego the benefits of free television licence, telephone rental, and ESB units, despite there being invariably no evidence to support the case that the family member is contributing to the overall cost of the family household. If it is not the intention of the Government to address this on a 100% basis then it may be within the gift of the Minister to explore a percentage approach of the cost in regard to these entitlements being allocated to the otherwise qualifying recipient. I urge the Minister to explore this area.
I deplore the situation where an increase in the hourly rate of pay for someone who is an adult dependant leads them to reduce their hours because of the knock-on effect on the adult dependant allowance. That is a fundamental flaw that needs to be addressed. A much more generous easing entitlement should be allowed for people in such a position. I call on the Minister to take those points on board.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute.
The record of this Government in improving the lot of people dependent on social welfare and that of the less well-off will go down in history as one of the best in the lifetime of the State. Only this morning we heard, on radio, a number of groups dealing with the less well-off accept that considerable progress has been made in that area. We all accept the need to ensure that those who depend on social welfare for their income should be looked after. That has not been in doubt among politicians on all sides of this House, but sometimes it has been easier to talk about it than to act. This Minister has acted over the past five years to improve the lot of the people he represents at the Cabinet table. After all, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs is the social welfare recipient's lifeline to Government.
There have been unprecedented social welfare increases over the lifetime of the Government and a number of schemes which are very important to those who benefit from them have been expanded. While achieving this, the Government has ensured that the needs of those who face the greatest hardship have been attended to. This year's increases are unprecedented and those that have been made over the past five years have led to a higher standard of living for social welfare recipients. There are a number of categories of social welfare. When this Government took office it stated that the minimum old age pension would be £100 per week by the time its term had ended. Some said that was completely unrealistic, but looking at the rates that are to be paid to pensioners under this legislation it is obvious that goal has been well and truly exceeded. That is of enormous benefit to pensioners and none of us will grudge them anything they get. They have made their contribution to society and worked to build the country we have today. They are entitled to the maximum that can be paid. The fringe benefits that attend payments are the envy of every other European country. We provide free travel, electricity allowance and numerous other allowances to people in receipt of social welfare payments. There is an onus on every Member to ensure that these people are looked after properly and it is nice to note that nobody has been critical of the increases this Bill proposes.
There are specific groups on whose behalf substantial progress has been made over the years. Carers have seen quite a change in their circumstances during the life of this Government, but even that change is not enough. The time they put into looking after those for whom they care is unquantifiable in monetary terms. I hope we continue to broaden the income bands with regard to carer's allowance as that, in the long-term, will lead to major savings for the State. People would not have to be cared for in institutions, or hospitalised, as their families could care for them to a greater extent. There is a need for not only by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, but also for health boards and other agencies concerned to provide a back-up service to full-time carers. People say carers are never paid. I agree that, irrespective of what allowance they are granted, they will never be sufficiently compensated for the efforts they make for the people they look after.
Another major achievement of the Minister has been the introduction of pensions at a reduced rate to those who made contributions up to the age of 53, but not thereafter. That has been a significant supplement to the incomes of many and it is only fair that those who made contributions should benefit from them. The changes the Minister has made should be lauded by this House. The people who are benefiting felt they had been forgotten, but the Minister came to their rescue. Some might say they receive the full pension, but most of them appreciate what they have been given. The same applies to those who had not made the required ten years' contributions. The improvements that have been made to provide them with reduced pensions is something they appreciate. In many cases they were unable to fulfil the conditions of the regulation because they were too old when it was introduced to bring their social welfare contributions up to the level demanded.
We must also look at the other changes made during the Minister's tenure. Child benefit increases, this year especially, have meant that people have been better able to provide for their families and to ensure that no hardship will be endured. Children are very expensive and becoming more so. More and more advertising is forced on them and the "keep up with the Joneses" element in child rearing causes financial stress. We all accept that parents want to provide their children with as much as possible and that is admirable.
The increases in social welfare benefits are such that people realise this Government was prepared to put in the necessary funding. There are still anomalies which we all come across in our daily work as politicians, but no matter how far we progress the social welfare system, we will never be able to get it to run perfectly. We have to admire the service the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs provides to the Members of this House. Its efficiency is to be praised. It returns quickly to Members with answers to the problems we have to deal with on behalf of our constituents and the efforts of its officials are to be complimented.
Widows have been mentioned and we all have a special regard for them. When a widow is bereaved, in many cases she still encounters the same costs as when her spouse was alive and they had a double income. I hope widows pension will be brought to the same level as other pensions. While this Minister has increased the rate of increases to widows to try to balance the payments, I still feel that widow pensions should be on a par with other pensions. I want the next Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to move this on and I hope that Minister will be the incumbent. The electorate will have the say as to who will form the Government after May.
When we look at the rate of increases we have to appreciate that a £10 per week increase is being provided to 205,000 pensioners. Few realise that there is that number under that category alone who will receive an extra £10. In total, there are approximately 900,000 recipients of social welfare who have 129,000 qualifying dependants. In fact, one million people or one quarter of the population benefit from the social welfare system. When one considers the number concerned, it is easy to think that we do not do enough. However, there is a limited budget and in the circumstances the increases must be targeted. This must be accepted by everybody.
In the budget the Minister especially targeted the old and the young. The increases given to all other social welfare recipients are more than in line with inflation. They are also in line with increases which will be given under the various programmes for those in employment. While I welcome these increases, perhaps there is a need for us to look down the road at further targeting because there will still be certain sections of the community who may find that they are excluded.
The back-to-work and back-to-education allowances should be open to anybody over 45 years of age. The reason I say this is that in many cases women who have reared their families now want to return to education to do the things that they might not have been able to do previously, but for financial reasons are not able to take up some of the schemes available. This is something which needs to be addressed and looked at on a targeted basis. The people concerned can make an enormous contribution when they return to the workforce at a later stage and should be given the opportunity of returning to it.
There are a number of other issues at which we must look in the context of social welfare. The plight of lone parents is a growing problem for us all. They have the problem of deciding whether to return to work or stay at home. We need to look at the social consequences of some of these decisions. I hope the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs might even conduct an examination of the position of lone parents in the social welfare system. The people concerned encounter major problems in finding accommodation and maintaining a standard of living for both themselves and their children. We must accept that, in addition to lone parenthood, marriage breakdown has become much more common in Ireland.
When we deal with these categories we should be extremely sympathetic. These are people who, due to no fault of their own, can find their circumstances have changed totally overnight. One day they can be in a steady relationship with a husband or wife and two days later find that they are lone parents. This can happen to either partner. We must look, therefore, at providing a system suitable in both circumstances. While I recognise that tremendous improvements have been made to the provisions for lone parents during the year, like in the case of carers, we need to improve the lot of those who find themselves in such circumstances.
I welcome the fact that this year social welfare increases will take effect from 1 January. This is a change to which we all aspired. During the years we heard Ministers say increases would come into effect in the month of July, June and then May. The Minister has provided that the increases will take effect from the same day as the change in tax credits. I welcome this change and hope it will always be continued into the future.
It must have taken tremendous effort on behalf of the Minister to ensure the introduction of this provision. No doubt the Department of Finance would prefer if the increases were introduced much later in the year, but the fact that recipients are now paid social welfare increases from the same day as those in employment benefit from changes in tax credits is a sign of tremendous progress. It is a sign of progress in the entire social welfare system. When one thinks about it, ten years ago changes in social welfare did not take effect until the month of July. The Minister has worked to bring the date forward and in 1997 the increases came into effect in the month of June, two months after the changes in the taxation system took effect. This year the social welfare changes have been brought forward to coincide with the introduction of the tax credit changes.
I welcome the changes in family income supplement which encourages people to go to work and take up jobs on wages marginally higher than their social welfare payment. I compliment the Minister on putting in place this incentive.
I welcome the changes introduced for people with a disability and those in rehabilitation. In my constituency the increase in the amount those on NRB and FÁS courses can receive tax free without affecting their social welfare payments has been welcomed. The level of disregard has increased from £35 in 1996 to £94 in 2002.
People do not realise that total social welfare expenditure will increase by 20% this year, a large increase. We all realise it has taken such an increase to do what needed to be done. Those who are able to earn a living without being dependent on social welfare have a duty to look after those in society who are less well off. We have a duty to ensure their income is sufficient to maintain themselves and their families and allow them to live in reasonable comfort. Those on social welfare feel insecure because they do not enjoy the security of having a job. In many cases they try to save and affect their standard of living to an extent none of us would appreciate.
The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs will be considering further decentralisation. I might at this stage suggest that, in view of the fact that there are social welfare offices in Longford, Sligo and Letterkenny, the next time we might bridge the gap and use Car rick-on-Shannon as a base for decentralisation for the Department.
Which section does the Deputy want?
I do not know which section the Deputy wants, but I will only fight my own corner.
We will have to take what is left.
Decentralisation has been of major benefit to those who use social welfare services. The various offices in Longford and Sligo have given better service than when everything was based in Dublin. That is all I want to say on the matter.
(Wexford): It is far from Wexford.
Another message from the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern.
I should become the Referendum Commission.
Deputy Browne is worried about Wexford, but my part of the country has the best telephone service due to the fact that we were the last to receive a digital system in the 1980s. I again compliment the Minister on his achievements in social welfare over the past five years. He has done a tremendous job for welfare recipients. He has also ensured that those who could leave the welfare system and return to work have been encouraged to do so.
I wish to share time with Deputy Connaughton.
We know the Minister's name because of all the broadcasts in recent months and the messages issued by his Department. He has built on a foundation put in place by previous Ministers in the past 20 years.
It is also fair to say the social welfare system has become streamlined to a great extent with the use of technology and to the benefit of most people. In my early days as a public representative in the House, the fear of God was put into applicants for the old age pension or those undergoing reviews for farmer's dole, unemployment assistance, pensions and so on. The pensions officer in rural areas wielded enormous power. There were stories, rumours and allegations about how hens, ducks or whatever else could make the difference between getting a pension or not. Circumstances have changed greatly. I remember my involvement as a national public representative in the bilateral agreements between Ireland, England and the United States. They came to fruition during Mr. Haughey's time and benefits were recognised in both jurisdictions which meant those who left the country because of economic necessity, worked in England and the United States and sent money home to keep their families here alive were eligible when they returned home to be considered for a range of benefits for the elderly. That was a recognition by Governments of the valuable part played by these men and women who left the country many years ago and wanted to retire to a much changed place.
There is something the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs can do for the navvies in Britain, many of whom live in doss houses and are afraid to come home because their lifestyles have deteriorated and they are alcoholics or suffer a range of social ailments. Some movements throughout the country are very good in this area and the Department, together with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Díon group, could do more. A database should be provided or made available to locate these people and offer them some comfort or the odd trip to Ireland to maintain contact with relatives and friends who may still be alive.
I am interested in the change in registration for births and marriages. I bring to the Minister's attention a case of which I am aware and with which he may be able to assist. It concerns a couple who had three children – two girls and a boy – before they were married. The children retained the mother's maiden name. When the couple married, it was possible for her to change the surnames of two of her children from her maiden to her married name. The boy was born after the legislation concerning births and marriages was changed and updated in October 1997. The boy retained the mother's maiden name as distinct from the other two children who now have her married name. I have contacted the General Register Office about this. There is a legal impediment which means the law will need to be made more flexible to cater for this. The Minister's officials may be aware of the case. I will send details of it to him and perhaps he might use his good offices to see if this can be resolved.
I am aware of the case.
It may require an amendment to the 1997 Act. It should be done because it can happen that three children of the same family can have different names.
I am also interested in the issue of the public service identity. This is leading to a point where everyone will have a public service identity. Section 12 could be extended to include "within the meaning of a specified body or location such places as a public house or night-club". Forged identity cards are frequently used by people in night-clubs, hotels and public houses. Gardaí find that people who are under-age use forged identity cards to obtain drink. This can result in the courts closing down these places for a period which is to the detriment of the proprietor despite the fact that he or she may have made an effort to ensure the person was over the legal age. The public service identity will include surname, forename, date of birth, place of birth, sex and so on, and this is information relevant to the authentication of a person's identity when he or she conducts business with a public service or other service.
If the definition of public services were to be extended to include facilities for the entertainment of the public, the public service identity could be valuable. If the technology were in place at the entrance to these facilities, a swipe card such as is used by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs for a range of purposes could also be used to authenticate and validate the age and identity of people and ensure they met the entry requirements or other such conditions. I do not hold any brief for those who suggest this would be a diminution of civil liberties. A social malaise is affecting our country because of alcohol and substance abuse. In this context, it is something which could be examined.
I have raised the point with the Minister on a number of occasions that the Department offers free travel facilities to everyone who is of pensionable age but that many pensioners are unable to use the facility because no public transport is available and neither is there private transport on which the Department has given its consent for people to use their free travel passes. For example, a number of elderly people living in the Tourmakeady-Finny area bordering Mayo and Galway, which is a wild, beautiful and mountainous area, never have the opportunity to avail of what the State gives them, which is a recognition that they are elderly citizens and that they have a right to travel free on public transport within the country. They can never avail of it because there is no public transport and neither is there any private transport which they can use with the official sanction of the Minister.
I raised this issue before and it should be possible to offer these people a voucher twice a month to travel with a validated taxi service to the nearest town. It would not just be for this purpose. It would also mean elderly people would be able to look forward to going to the local town, visiting the church or their friends and doing their shopping. It would be a day out from the confinement of their homes. It is wrong that, while the State is sufficiently caring and broad-minded enough to recognise that, because these people are of a certain age, they should have the right of free travel, they cannot avail of it during their pension years. For the relatively small amount involved, a licensed taxi driver should be able to take these pensioners to their local towns twice a month for the purposes I have mentioned. It would not only be for social good and a mental challenge but would also give them the opportunity to do themselves up, do some shopping, visit the church and their friends and so on. It is feasible to add a voucher to their pension books to allow them to do that.
The Minister did not concentrate on this issue when I mentioned it to him previously but I know he will now. We have received messages from a Dermot Ahern who purports to be an understanding Minister and I am sure he is.
He cannot do the impossible.
I am sure he understands that, in the far-flung regions of the country, there are people who are given this recognition by the State of a free travel pass but unfortunately cannot use it. It is wonderful to see the more experienced people in our community who have the free travel availing of it. They travel throughout the country and that is to be commended and built upon. My suggestion is one means by which we could grant equality of opportunity to pensioners who cannot avail of the free transport scheme.
Like everyone else, I do not recall a Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs competing on national prime time television against programmes like "Friends" as did the Minister, Deputy Ahern. Not only did he overdo it, but it was in poor taste. What he was trying to get across to the most vulnerable groups in society is that it was he, via Fianna Fáil, who was giving the increases, which is not the case. Like many Ministers before him the model was already in place.
The Deputy voted against the increases.
The Minister just happened to be in office at a time when there was more money at his disposal than was the case previously.
The Deputy cannot claim credit for the increases.
The Deputy without interruption.
The Minister has been the least able of all Ministers to take criticism down through the years. However, that is his problem.
County Louth mentality.
A tough northerner.
Even though it was a great time to be Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and he could take decisions no one before him could take, he turned his back on a certain category of people. I would be the first to acknowledge that the basic old age pension which is now in place is no more than people deserve. Despite the gloss the Minister put on it, many elderly people say to me that they were delighted to receive the increase in the old age pension but the cost of living is creeping up. In a few months' time the increase will not be as glossy as the Minister pretends. If one takes into account grocery bills, the price of food and so on the cost of living continues to increase. Neither did the change-over to the euro currency help the situation.
There are a few categories of people on whom the Minister has completely turned his back. These include carers.
Nonsense.
I listened to what the Minister had to say, therefore, he should pay me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.
There are 100,000 carers here. Some suggest there are more. Following the budget and the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 19,500 of the 100,000 carers will receive assistance to look after their disabled friends and relatives. That is only a drop in the ocean. If one were to relate this to individual families the figures are even worse. Irrespective of one's income, some one must do the caring 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Given the way in which the assessment for carer's allowance is carried out and given the increases in wages and salaries, even though the guidelines and thresholds have been increased, the numbers of people coming into the system as carers who are entitled to the carer's allowance is beginning to level out. Like many of the other social welfare recipient groups, it will level out at a particular level and the most one can expect under the present system is approximately 20,000. This begs the question about the other 80,000 carers and who cares for them? What does the Minister propose to do in regard to these huge problems? I am aware of constituents of mine who are relatively small farmers and, because of the way in which the assessment was carried out, they were deemed to be ineligible, even though the mother spends at least 24 hours a day caring for her mother-in-law. This is the way life is structured particularly in rural areas. If this woman's health does not stand the strain and the person who is being cared for is sent to one of the State nursing homes, such as St. Brendan's in Loughrea, I understand the cost to the Exchequer could be as high as £600 or £700 a week. A huge number of people are very bitter as a result of this system. There is nothing in the Bill for this type of carer.
I cannot understand the way in which governments, particularly this Government which had so much money, dealt with the various allowances for mentally handicapped people. I have no time to consider each allowance, but I will to refer to respite care. The Minister made available a respite allowance, which I welcome. The problem in regard to the mentally handicapped, particularly those in east Galway and the Ballinasloe area, is that the opportunities for respite places are not available. This means a number of parents of special children may be able to avail of respite care only once every six months. This is a very poor reflection on a Government which has so many resources at its disposal. This aspect is raised daily and I do not blame parents for being bitter.
Another issue to which I refer is child benefit. I congratulate the Minister because I have always believed this is one of the most important ways of getting badly needed funds on a weekly and monthly basis to people on low incomes. This is as direct a route as possible for paying mothers of such families. We would all agree that, by and large, it is mothers who take so much responsibility for the upbringing of children. This should not necessarily be the case, but that is how it is. This does not mean families are either rich or poor but, unfortunately, women in some families with a so-called good income may have nothing other than the child benefit.
I raise with the Minister the question of women who were in the Civil Service in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and up until the 1980s. A number of women recently approached me who worked as telephonists in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs up to 1985. These people were not paying the stamp or insurance contribution which would entitle them to a pension on reaching the age of 66. A great number of them are very sore about the fact that while their input into the State was as great as anyone else's, because of a series of factors which developed, they are now forgotten. There is nothing for them unless they had personal pension funds or were employed in later years in insurable employment. These people cannot understand why it is not possible for the State to recognise their input down through the years at a time when they need it most.
There are a number of issues in regard to the farm assist scheme, but in fairness to the staff of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, in so far as queries from Deputies are concerned, there is a good system in place for answering queries quickly. It is to their credit that they operate in this way. I would like the Minister to convey that message to them. I hope he will try to expedite the oral appeal system – a good system – because applicants are waiting too long.
(Wexford): I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the Bill and compliment the Minister on his work in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs over the past five years. I think I heard him say he has implemented his sixth budget. If one looks at the record of different Ministers for Social, Community and Family Affairs during the years, one will find that very few remained in the Department for that length of time. Remaining in the Department for that length of time is good because continuity and the ability to implement one's own ideas and policies and the ideas and policies of different organisations are very important.
The Minister referred to the €850 million social welfare package announced in the budget, a substantial amount of money. It is important that it be spread across the different sectors pertaining to social welfare to bring the key improvements required to those on social welfare.
The limit in the means test for carer's allowance has been increased. There are now about 20,000 receiving payments compared to 9,000 in 1997. I am glad that we have moved on and that a substantial amount of the moneys available to the Government has been allocated to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs.
The Celtic tiger, about which we have heard so much in the past five years, brought many benefits to a wide sector of the community. I have been a Member of the Dáil since 1982. In the 1980s difficult decisions had to be and were made by different Governments. In that decade many on very low social welfare payments received very small increases. They made substantial sacrifices. It is only right that now in a time of plenty social welfare payments should be and have been increased to benefit those on disability benefit, old age pension, widower's allowance, unemployment assistance – including the long-term unemployed – and other groups which depend on social welfare. We should not have to make apologies to anybody for doing so. As I said, in the 1970s and 1980s the people concerned had to make significant sacrifices, as did those in employment, because jobs were very scarce and those who were working received very small wage increases at the time. Everyone had to tighten his or her belt. I compliment the Minister for recognising the role played by old age pensioners, in particular, in building the State and ensuring they now have a decent standard of living. I hope this will continue in the years ahead.
Substantial increases in child care and child minding costs have become an emotive issue in recent years. Substantially increasing child benefit rates is probably the best and fairest way of ensuring people can afford to pay for child minding. It is the most equitable system. I thank the Minister for more than trebling child benefit rates since 1997. I will not engage in bashing the last Government because what is most important is that we continue to increase substantially the payments for those in the social welfare system when moneys are available.
The increase in the carer's allowance disregard has been very welcome with the result that the Minister has brought a substantial number of extra carers into the scheme. He stated there is to be further dialogue between the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children in terms of carer's allowance and keeping elderly persons at home and in the community. That is how it should be. We hear a lot of talk about the high costs involved in keeping them in hospital. One hears different figures, ranging from £1,000 to £5,000 per week. I do not know what the actual figure is, but every so often we read of the high costs in the newspapers.
If there was a more user-friendly system operating between the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children in terms of carer's allowance, elderly persons would be able to stay in the community. More would be able to keep them at home. This needs to be addressed because the Department of Health and Children is dealing with certain aspects of the issue while the Department of the Environment and Local Government deals with disability grants. Local authorities have other responsibilities.
I find that, in my local authority, it takes a long time to have an extra bedroom, a wheelchair-friendly toilet or shower system put in place. To get approval from a local authority can sometimes take one year. Frequently, elderly persons are not able to remain in their own home and have to enter a nursing home or geriatric hospital as a result. There should be far more communication between the relevant Departments and local authorities where social welfare is concerned. I welcome the fact that the Minister has instigated a study in this regard, but ask that reporting be done as quickly as possible.
I welcome the initiative taken by the Minister in respect of the respite care grant which has given an opportunity to those minding the disabled or physically challenged people on a full-time basis to take a few weeks' holidays. I also welcome the increase this year which is very worthwhile. One has to be in receipt of carer's allowance, but there are persons just beyond the limit. I suppose that, no matter where one draws the line in creating a limit, there will be those who will not qualify. I came across a woman recently who has been minding her son for 27 years and has never had a holiday in that time. Her husband is in a reasonable, but not a great job. She does not qualify for the respite care grant. She tells me that she is about £10 over the limit to qualify for carer's allowance. As a result, she loses everything. Perhaps there should be a graduated payment. Certainly, in cases such as this, there is a need for less bureaucracy and a little more flexibility. If special cases are made, the Minister should be able to look at them.
In my home town there is a group, in which I am involved, which is trying to establish a respite house. The Department of Health and Children is involved, as is the Department of the Environment and Local Government because one has to apply for grants through the local authority in respect of voluntary housing. The social welfare sector is involved with regard to respite care grants through the community grants system, etc. Again, there are three bodies involved which we are trying to pull together. It is very difficult at times to get all of them thinking at the one level.
There is a need for respite care centres throughout the country in which parents could place their physically challenged children for a week or two while they go on holidays or do other things, such as attend a wedding. Certainly, when one sits down with those involved and hears their stories it is frightening at times to know that they are are minding a son or a daughter with very little reward for practically 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Again, I praise the Minister for recognising that there was a need for a respite care grant and the need to increase it. I hope, even if one does not qualify for carer's allowance, there will be more flexibility to allow, in certain circumstances, payment of a respite care grant to allow people to take a holiday.
Perhaps I have a problem with social welfare officers. For many years I have complained about the attitude of some social welfare officers. Some, particularly younger ones, act like little gods in their communities, hassling, harassing and putting enormous pressure on social welfare claimants. They appear to put particular pressure on people claiming benefit for the first time in years and who have been working all of their lives but, through no fault of their own, find themselves out of work. When, for example, applicants have to transfer from unemployment benefit to unemployment assistance they are subjected to unreal harassment and hassle and have to face mind-boggling bureaucratic nonsense. If they have received a modest redundancy payment they are obliged to produce documentary evidence of it, and receipts to show where it has been spent. There is a need for less bureaucratic nonsense from social welfare officers. It may be that they are obliged to behave in this way but their attitudes are often not client-friendly. I ask the Minister to examine this matter.
Many farmers on small incomes are not aware of farm assist and family income supplement. I do not object to the Minister's campaigns to advertise the social welfare benefits or to seeing his photograph on leaflets. There may even be a need for another batch of advertisements to publicise farm assist and the family income supplement. A substantial number of people are not availing of these two schemes because they are not aware of them.
Free telephone rental should be available to people who live in nursing homes. Deputy Ring has been vocal on this subject and I have written to the Department on the matter. Many residents of nursing homes have private rooms with a telephone. These residents enjoyed the free telephone rental while they lived in their own homes and it should not be too difficult to adjust the scheme to enable them to avail of it when in nursing homes. Mobile 'phones are costly. Despite the entry of a second provider in the Irish market there still appears to be a monopoly with regard to mobile 'phone charges.
Deputy Kenny raised the question of free travel vouchers for old age pensioners and I raised this matter myself during the budget debate. In my constituency many people living in isolated areas do not avail of free bus travel. I have spoken to pensioners who have never used their free travel passes on a train or bus. How many of those who are entitled to free travel have never availed of it? A voucher system should be available to people in rural areas to pay a taxi or hack ney. Many rural areas now have a mini-bus or hackney service and many people in my constituency pay between £7 and £10 to take them into Enniscorthy or Wexford every Friday to collect their pensions. People who can show they are unable to avail of free public transport should receive an annual payment which could be added to their pensions.
In the past year there has been approximately 1,000 job losses in County Wexford. The statutory redundancy payment is very small and it is time for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to bring this payment up to date. It bears no relation to current wage and salary rates.
Many of the 200 people who lost their jobs in Wexal in Enniscorthy last summer and sought the back-to-work or back-to-education allowances to set up their own businesses or to help them to become re-employed were told they did not qualify because they had not been long enough in receipt of social welfare payments. The system encourages people to remain unemployed to avail of back-to-work or back-to-education allowances. There should be more flexibility in this area. People want to get back to the work environment immediately. I know of people who worked in Wexal for 25 years and they are not people who are inclined to stay on social welfare. They want to get back to work and it is important that we encourage them in that. The obligation to remain unemployed for a period to avail of schemes should be examined by the Minister. He should examine this matter in conjunction with the updating of redundancy payments. The Ministers for Social, Community and Family Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Employment should come together to update redundancy payments and make qualification for the back-to-work and back-to-education allowances less bureaucratic.
I welcome the increase in the free fuel allowance. However, when the Minister returns to office after the general election I hope he will consider a further increase in this allowance. The increase is welcome but more is needed.
Many groups have availed of the grants for voluntary and community groups. In my town major changes have been brought about by women's groups and others which have availed of grants from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. This grant system should continue but it should be made more flexible. Assessors of applicant groups could be more flexible and take account of the fact that many groups are operating in disadvantaged areas and are doing tremendous work. The Minister met members of the Templeshannon community development group from Enniscorthy when he visited Wexford last week. This group of women came together in a severely disadvantaged area and are providing much needed services, including computer, back-to-school and child care services. It is important that such groups be encouraged and further grants made available, perhaps in a less bureaucratic way. I thank the Minister for introducing the grant system. It is a worthwhile and innov ative system which has been maintained by the past two or three Governments. I hope extra money will be made available to allow groups such as the Templeshannon group to continue and prosper in the future.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill. The payments and the efficiency of the Department in dealing with public representatives have improved a great deal. I compliment the Minister and his Department on how they deal with parliamentary questions. The information sheet we receive on a regular basis is useful and makes it easier for Members to help their constituents. I have seen many changes since my election to the House and great progress has been made.
The increases in child benefit are welcome. It is an important method of channelling funding to children, generally through the mother. The benefit has worked well in terms of eliminating poverty and channelling funding directly to where it is needed. For a long time the child benefit payment was low and it is probably still low compared to the UK. Hopefully, however, it is on an upward trend.
Child benefit has been mentioned in connection with child care but if one is to hope that child benefit payments will cover the cost of child care, there is a long way to go. The recent increase of £25 per child would not keep a child in a crèche for one day a month. More needs to be done in the child care area. I do not wish to appear ungrateful but we need to be more imaginative in terms of developing more places and introducing quality assurance schemes. More needs to be done in addition to the existing child care regulations. I hope Fianna Fáil in the run-up to the next election will outline what it proposes to do in that area.
Child care is still a serious concern, not just for women who work outside the home but for all parents. It is a constant headache trying to access affordable, reliable and efficient child care. It is a frustrating issue because it is affected by other Departments, such as the Department of Health and Children and the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Everybody is aware of the difficulties involved in making planning applications, an area that needs to be streamlined.
There should be a more imaginative approach. One of my party's proposals is consideration of a direct payment to child care providers or those working in the industry. Historically, it is a low pay industry. There are many courses available where young women, and some young men, secure qualifications in child care but when they discover how low the wages are in the industry they often leave the sector or go abroad. That is a shame.
It is accepted that we need to encourage more women into the workplace but we must do something imaginative to support those women and to ensure they have the necessary child care pro vision. I carried out a small survey in this regard in my constituency recently. Many people told me their reason for not working outside the home was that they could not take the headache and stress of not having child care or of getting a telephone call on a Friday night to tell them the crèche is no longer operating or that the child minder will not be available to mind the children on Monday morning. What does one do? It is a concern for parents. Some are fortunate enough to have the option of not working outside the home but others have no choice because of their financial commitments.
More must be done in this area. We are often told how well this area is managed in other European countries but we have a unique system in which other mothers will take in children and mind them. That is something we need to watch because much of it takes place in the black economy. Nobody condones that but at the same time we should not ride roughshod over a system that works well.
The extension of paid and unpaid maternity leave is most welcome. If one can avail of unpaid leave, one can have up to six months maternity leave. It is difficult to go back to work when one has a very young baby. There are sleepless nights and the baby has not yet settled into a pattern. Ireland has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe so extending maternity leave will, hopefully, encourage breastfeeding. There has been pressure on mothers to go back to work when they and their babies are not ready, particularly if the mother wishes to continue breastfeeding the baby. The six months leave, for those who can avail of it, will be most welcome in that regard. It will also help women to remain in the workplace should they choose to do so.
I put down a parliamentary question on paternity leave recently. Paternity leave is unpaid but it is a valuable and progressive measure introduced by the Minister. However, there is a low uptake of the leave according to the figures I received. Is that because people are unaware of it or because it is unpaid? It is a worthwhile provision and it is something that should be encouraged. It recognises that men have a strong role to play in the care and development of their children.
The respite care grant is dealt with in the Bill. The carer's allowance is the subject of much correspondence to public representatives. A carers' group from my constituency visited the Dáil recently. Carers do valuable work for the community and the people being cared for. A number of speakers have made the important point that if carers were not available to care for dependent children, adult dependents or elderly parents or relatives, the State would not be able to cope. We all value the work of carers but they are frustrated and angry that their work and the contribution they make is not being recognised and does not have an independent value. A second income in the household is taken into consideration for payment of the allowance. That is wrong. We should recognise carers and the valued contribution they make.
The lack of respite care facilities is a problem. There is a respite care grant but accessing a respite care facility is extremely difficult. There are not many places available. It is probably easier for elderly parents. Disabled children and adults, however, find it extremely difficult to access respite places. Today there will be a march in Cork by parents of autistic children and their children. It is one of a series of protests. Today they are protesting against the lack of services like occupational and speech therapy. Another march will protest against the lack of respite care facilities. That must be dealt with. Many people cannot gain access to respite care facilities and much more needs to be done in this area. Disability groups have raised the issue of the lack of access to respite care.
The position of widows has improved but young widows feel their needs are not recognised. I regularly meet young widows when I am canvassing. Their income is less than that of widows aged over 66. Young widows are in a difficult position as some of them still have dependants living at home with them. They feel they are not recognised because they cannot take up work given that they must care for their dependants. More should be done for widows aged under 66 and the free schemes should be extended to cover them. That would be an additional support in the difficult scenario in which they find themselves. They will obviously avail of child benefit if they are entitled to it. Young widows are on their own and they have the same expenses as any other adult who must keep a roof over his or her head and the heads of his or her dependants. An extension to them of the free schemes and free travel in particular, is worth considering.
I live in an urban constituency and those who avail of free travel, particularly the elderly, cannot do so until 9.30 a.m. and are not able to avail of such travel between 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. Many must travel across Cork city to University Hospital Cork for appointments with consultants and doctors. Generally such appointments are early in the morning and in order to fulfil them, people must be on the road early and cannot avail of the free travel. I have spoken to representatives of Bus Éireann who say the reason for this is capacity and they must make seats available for people who travel to work. However, people who are entitled to free travel feel aggrieved about this, particularly if they can prove they have a doctor's appointment and have a reason to travel early in the morning. There should be flexibility in this regard.
I welcome the increase in the free fuel scheme, which had not been addressed for a long time. Perhaps the Minister will consider extending the scheme to cover some of the summer months because the weather during the summer is not great. Quite often the months of May, June and August can be cool and elderly people need extra heat. An extension of the scheme would not be a huge burden on the Exchequer. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility to work out something in this area.
I wish to share time with Deputy Belton.
I thank Deputy Clune for sharing time. I will refer only to the carer's allowance and, in particular, to cases where the carer and the person being cared for do not live together. The Minister amended the scheme so that the carer did not have to live with the person being cared for in order to qualify for the allowance and that was fair. There are cases where people who live adjacent to those they care for are allowed to avail of the scheme and that makes a great deal of sense but there is a problem with the terms of reference of the scheme, which is regularly pointed out by social welfare inspectors. They state the person being cared for must be in receipt of full-time care. I hope the Minister will refer to this when he replies.
The inspectors are people of the world and they want to help claimants but they are in a dilemma. Full-time care is now defined in terms of a certain number of hours but I will not go into that. However, I am aware of two cases which are under appeal and I am annoyed and upset because the people involved are genuinely providing care to elderly people living beside them while looking after their own families. They call on the elderly people they care for in the morning and help to ready them for the day. They return at lunch time and in the evening to ensure the elderly people are all right. This means the elderly people can stay in their own homes and they are provided with a caring service. The Minister and his officials can argue that person should be cared for on a full-time basis but that is not practical because in many cases those who are cared for do not need care 100% of the time.
The people to whom care is provided are medically certified to qualify under the scheme. The medical certificate states clearly they have qualified under the scheme but there is still an anomaly because the person giving them care does not qualify for the carer's allowance because they are not providing care 100% of the time. However, we are not dealing with machines. We cannot be rigid when we are dealing with the needs of people who are vulnerable and who have been medically certified as being in need of care.
The Minister is a good man to give messages as he has spent the past three months doing so. I want him to give a directive to his staff that in circumstances where a person has been medically approved for care under the scheme and a carer is available adjacent to that person, the Department will be more flexible regarding the regulations and will be totally on the side of the person who is being cared for. There is more emphasis on regulation than on people. There is no doubt the Department has to operate within regulations but I am highlighting a dilemma that exists for carers. From a humanitarian point of view, if a person qualifies on a medical basis for care under the scheme and a carer is available nearby everything should be done so ensure he or she receives an allowance under the scheme.
I thank Deputy Clune for allowing me to raise this urgent matter. I have two cases pending under this scheme and I hope the Minister will live up to his word. He is good man for giving out messages and, therefore, I hope he gives out the right message in these circumstances.
There are further good messages in regard to the increases in child benefit and respite care grants. I hope Opposition Members will not be whipped into the House to vote against these increases later, as they were when the increases for the elderly were put before the House. I particularly welcome the increases but I also welcome the changes to the social welfare code and the register of births and deaths Act. We have now come in from the dark ages and this area is to be computerised, which was long overdue. This will make life easier for the staff involved whom I compliment in particular those who deal with Deputies' queries. They have always been most helpful and the modernised system will facilitate them.
Other Deputies have mentioned the Government's record on various issues. This Minister has a record second to none. Later, I will compare his record with that of the so-called rainbow Administration. As we improve the circumstances of many groups, certain anomalies will arise. The Minister needs to keep an eye on these and be flexible enough to move speedily to ensure justice is done and people benefit, as they need. A special case must be made for young widows and this area should be reviewed.
In the past many people on the doorsteps complained about the treatment of social welfare recipients, whereby announcements were made on budget day but payments would only be made four, five or six months later. The final proposed budget of the rainbow coalition would have pushed these payments out to October, which would have been disgraceful. However, people have now been paid in January and this has been very widely welcomed. I know some catching up is required this year and it took six weeks to adjust computer systems for the euro changeover, etc. Although it has been expensive to implement this, it is the people's money and they are entitled to it. I praise the Minister and the Government for this welcome change.
Any administration must be responsible in allocating funds and dealing with its work. It must ensure funding is available for all payments. This administration has worked very diligently with all sectors of society, the farming community, business, industry and commerce to have people work to get money into central coffers for such payments and not to let us run into debt. I deeply resented the hypocritical comments made last week by one of the leaders of the Opposition, Deputy Noonan, about setting up a sanitary department within Government to clean up after a Fianna Fáil led administration. He made a grossly unfair reference to the past, but when we refer to the record, we are accused of mismanaging historical facts.
In October 1986, four years into an administration including Deputy Michael Noonan, and after the supposed clean up, this country had the worst debt ratio per head on the planet. It was worse than banana republics, Third World countries or anybody whose economy had been monitored and counted. Our debt ratio was 126% of GDP and we were technically bankrupt. With modern trading laws, if the country were a company it would be prosecuted. It was grossly irresponsible. In October 1986, there were 232,400 unemployed people. The preliminary report of the 1986 census, published by the CSO, an independent body, showed emigration stood at its highest rate for 20 years. The figures indicated the net outflow of people had increased by 31,000 since 1981 and 1982 when Fianna Fáil was in Government.
I do not like mentioning such historical facts – we should be up to date. There is great news in the facts of this year, last year and the previous one. However that scandalous statement got significant attention and I can understand why the people are deemed to be cynical about political statements. I have quoted CSO figures and we were all concerned at that time. People said we could not recover from that, but a Fianna Fáil led administration did help us and we got the Tallaght strategy and other things. By any economic measurement, we were bankrupt at the time and I resent being told that Deputy Noonan or anybody else came in and cleaned up.
Although we should not forget the great improvements that have taken place, I will continue to make a case for people. The carer's allowance was ineffective before the time of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. The benefits are now huge and the increase in the respite grant was critical. These measures will benefit 21,000 carers and will cost an additional €3 million. There are various estimates of the number of full-time carers – I have heard figures up to 100,000. A detailed analysis of this should be carried out to determine who needs financial assistance. The argument against eliminating a means test is that we need to target what money is available. I accept that its complete abolition would cost an estimated €132 million in a full year. I look forward to the day when we can announce the abolition of that means test. For years, I campaigned to abolish the means test for old age pensioners because it was degrading. People who had contributed all their lives deserved better treatment from the State. I will campaign to abolish the means test when we can afford it.
I pay tribute to the work of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. He is fully entitled to put his picture on any advertisement that goes out. Those of us who have been here since the mid 1980s have seen how slowly the improvements were made before he came to office. I am very pleased with him. I agree with my constituency colleague, Deputy Clune, that young widows are a special category because they have large outgoings such as home heating, education and transport costs. Improvements have been made since the time Deputy Woods was Minister for Social Welfare. He took a special interest in that area and worked with them.
We must be innovative in the way we deal with issues. We must deal with the issue of free travel in rural areas where people are isolated. Modern society is changing. There were times when people were happy to make their own entertainment in places such as Glencar or the Black Valley in Kerry. Society revolved around a game of cards, such as "45" or "110", and a couple of bottles of stout. However, society has changed and we must move with the times. People now go to community halls five, ten or 15 miles away. We are working to provide satellite day care and health centres. Large sums of money are being spent, but we must be able to transport people to these places. Great changes have been made, but people must have a vision. I think it was Mick O'Connell's wife, who is a nurse on Valentia Island, who got the first social welfare funds for a minibus. The drivers were employed on a community employment scheme. They looked for the same money which would be given to CIE for free travel and they felt it was justified. Such methods should be used throughout the country. The community and the voluntary sector are willing to get involved in the provision of school buses, etc. There will be full support from the Administration for it.
Those of us who are concerned about old age pensioners are happy about what is happening. People were whipped in to vote against the 10% increase for the elderly, which was scandalous when one considers what Deputy De Rossa gave when he had responsibility for that area. The rainbow coalition increased old age contributory pensions by 9.9% during its term in office. The present Administration increased them by 48.7%. People will talk about inflation, but the rainbow coalition increased the old age contributory pension by only 4% in one year. The current Administration increased it by 23.9%. Those are real increases. We can deal with inflation. Arguments will still be made for further increases. However, we must be willing to target specific areas, such as those who need transport and special food. The rainbow coalition increased non-contributory old age pensions by 10.7% during its term in office, while the current Administration increased them by 85.3%. I am proud of that achievement.
I had to circulate a newsletter to my constituents about the increases because the Opposition argued they were not real. As soon as the budget was announced in each of the past three years my Opposition colleagues in the constituency were out of the traps before me. I was thrilled they spoke to the people about what the Government had given them because it meant I did not have to do all the work. They outlined the percentage increase and it made my job easier. I welcomed that because it took the pressure off me. The news is so good they are anxious to be the first to tell it. That is happening in almost every constituency. I hope it will be the same during the next Administration.
We all remember when the half crown was taken out of circulation, but the one change that will be remembered more than any is the 9.9% increase in old age contributory pensions by the rainbow coalition. I am glad the individuals involved are still here to take responsibility, although the party has merged. Left and right have now come together. I stand over the figure of 48.7%. There was an increase of 2.5% in 1995, 3% in 1996 and 4% in 1997. We are pleased with our achievement because if we cannot do it for our elderly, we will not do it for anyone. We will publish all the information in the next six or eight weeks and we will do the best we can.
I will be pleased if we are back in Government after the next election. The general consensus is that we have done well. I compliment the Administration rather than one individual. If the worst criticism which can be levelled at a person is that he or she is willing to identify with his or her portfolio and the increases he or she is granting, it says a lot for the individual. I could not have imagined Deputy De Rossa putting his picture on a leaflet telling people they will get £1.20 a week. If the greatest gripe against the Minister is that his picture appears on leaflets, I hope he continues for a long time in office.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I thank the staff of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs for the manner in which they deal with all the correspondence from my constituency. They provide an exceptional service. The same is true in the local offices. The last time I spoke on a social welfare Bill I complimented the inspectorate on the appeals system. I have visited that area on many occasions since the last Bill was enacted and I compliment it on its independence and the way it treats the people who must use that unfortunate part of the Department. It deals with each case effectively and in a civil manner and it gives the applicant every opportunity to make his or her case.
Opportunities have arisen because of the economic upturn for the Minister and the Department to be given a large slice of the cake. I compliment the Minister on seizing the opportunity to improve the lives of those in a sector of our community which has been in need of financial benefits for many years. Deputy Dennehy spoke about previous problems, but the finance was not available in the past. The finances were not as good a number of years ago as they are now. I am sure that when Ministers were dealing with social wel fare issues then, they had to fight at the Cabinet table to get as much as they could and they did that to the best of their ability.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.