In amendment No. 1 there are two corrections. The word "That" should be deleted and the word "undertakes" should read "shall undertake".
Social Welfare Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs shall undertake a study of the Regulations in relation to late claims under S.I. No. 55 of 1998 with a view to amending and extending same."
This amendment refers to late claims for contributory social welfare allowances, including contributory old age pensions, retirement pensions, widow's pensions and orphan's allowances. Heretofore there has been no clear regulation covering those people who, during their working lives, made contributions but who, on reaching the qualifying age, did not claim their pensions. The Department of Social Welfare has no mechanism for informing people of their entitlements. Many people discover, three or four years later, that they have lost many pension payments. There are hundreds such cases.
Last year some of these late claims were examined by the Ombudsman and he judged that three cases had suffered maladministration. The Department, ahead of the Ombudsman's findings, had decided to pay in two of the cases. At the behest of the then Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, the Ombudsman took a broader look at the regulations governing late claims for payment and said:
Given the complexity of social insurance in general and given that people of all backgrounds are liable to be ill informed in relation to it, the Department has not adequately publicised the penalties in operation in the case of contributory pension claims made late. . .
The application in individual cases of the provision of Articles 102, 104 and 105, irrespective of the circumstances of each individual case, does not comply with basic fairness or reasonableness nor does it satisfy the requirements of the principle of proportionality and is accordingly contrary to fair and sound administration.
A section was inserted into the 1997 Social Welfare Bill to deal with this matter and the Minister published Statutory Instrument No. 55 of 1998 in January to deal with it. I am sorry to say that the Minister's response has been most inadequate. Nobody who has an entitlement can make a claim for payment before January 1997. Only claims made on or after January 1997 are to be dealt with. This is unfair and contrary to the recommendations of the Ombudsman. It is the practice when the Ombudman makes a recommendation that all parties agree to his findings. Thousands of people who have late claims for payment before January 1997, just over a year ago, have no case. This is not only unfair but also, in my opinion, illegal. If the Minister does not concede this point today I have, as a Member of the Oireachtas, the privilege of putting this case back to the Ombudsman and asking for his comment on the Minister's action.
Statutory Instrument No. 55 allows that if a claim exceeds one year but not two years the claimant will be entitled to 50 per cent of the number of weeks exceeding one year of the date of claim, if it exceeds two years but not three years the claimant will receive 40 per cent and if it exceed three years the claimant will receive 30 per cent; and if it exceeds two years, and if it exceeds four years, but not five years, a claimant will receive 20 per cent. If a late claim exceeds more than five years a claimant would get only 10 per cent.
The people involved made lifelong contributions during their working lives. The contributions were taken from them by legal requirement and they had no discretion in the matter. Since law required those people to make a contribution towards their pension it is wrong for the State to deny them their entitlement when they reach the qualifying age just because they did not claim on time due to lack of information.
This matter does not only involve cases where wrong information is given. Under the instrument signed by the Minister, it includes information given by officers of his Department, but most people would not approach officers of the Department for information. They might approach their employers, a solicitor or a politician and be given the wrong information but believed it was correct and, for that reason, their claim may have been delayed or not made since they believed those who gave them the information knew about entitlements to allowances and pensions.
As I said people who made late claims for pensions made their contributions as they were legally bound to. I know the Minister will throw figures at me citing enormous cost but I do not believe them because the Minister will paint the worst possible scenario. This is a question of basic legal entitlements and the Minster should respond positively to the amendment.
The background note on the report of the Office of the Ombudsman covers the historic problem that arose in regard to this matter. It is something I inherited in the short time since being appointed. It can be seen from the Ombudsman's report that this matter was not on the previous Minister's desk for a number of months. It has been going on for years — as far back as 1984. The previous Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills, expressed concern about the matter on a number of occasions over the years.
The situation arose because of statutory instruments made by successive Ministers for Social Welfare on the issue have been brought to a head recently. It is true that a section was inserted in last year's Social Welfare Bill by my predecessor in order to enable regulations to be made. The 1998 regulations that were finally brought into being by me in January were along the lines the previous Government was planning in order to deal with this issue. It is necessary to make that point. The issue is a complex and costly one.
The Social Welfare Consolidated Payments Provisions (Amendment No. 2) Regulations of 1998 — Statutory Instrument No. 55 of 1998, promulgated in February 1998 — were brought forward as a consequence of the Ombudsman's report on the payment of arrears of contributory pensions where the claim for such pensions is made late. In paragraph 91.4 of the Ombudsman's report, he recommended that arrears of pensions claimed late should be paid up to the level of full arrears where the delay in claiming arose due to an error for which the Department had some culpability, failure to pay arrears or some proportion of arrears would result in hardship to the pensioner and the delay arose because of some mental or physical incapacity on the part of the pensioner or as a result of events or circumstances outside the pensioner's control, including situations of force majeure.
In addition, recommendation 91.5 of the report states that consideration should be given to cases not falling within the categories in recommendation 4, as outlined above, with a view to mitigating the adverse effects on late claimants so that any penalty suffered may be more in proportion with the failure to claim on time.
Having considered the matter I am delighted to say that I did avail of the powers contained in the Social Welfare Act, 1997, to further provide regulations for payment of up to full arrears in cases where the delay is due to incorrect information issued by the Department, the claimant's incapacity, force majeure or for a claimant who is in debt and is unable to reasonably finance such debts. The extra statutory provision which was there prior to the 1998 regulations is, in effect, still there where exceptional circumstances, as I outlined above, apply. It is not true to say, therefore, that all claims are ruled out.
In addition, the regulations provide for payment on a proportional basis of all late claims irrespective of the reason for the delay in claiming. The regulations are a reasonable and fair response to the issues raised in the Ombudsman's report.
On all occasions when discussing this issue every effort will be made to have applications for social welfare payments submitted in good time. That boils down to proper information being given to people at particular times. I appreciate there are times when people cannot submit claims in time due to a lack of information on the part of the Department which may have fallen down in not informing people. However, a substantial amount of taxpayers' money is spent by the Department providing information through leaflets and the media. Great emphasis is laid on customer service and ensuring that people are aware of their rights.
As anyone in public life knows, social welfare is an extremely complex area. We are making every effort, however, to ensure that the level of late claims is diminished through better information and public response.
I thank the Minister for his reply but in my reading of the Ombudsman's report he said nothing about a cut off date for all claims. For the purpose of these regulations, the Minister is only entertaining claims made on or after 1 January 1997. Is that correct?
No, that is not correct. As I said, it is possible that other claims could be dealt with under the exceptional circumstances provision which has been extended by the regulations. Those instances include incorrect information or the claimant's incapacity to claim on time, which may well be the situation in many cases. Currently, I have cases in that vein, or of force majeure, before me.
What does the Minister mean by "force majeure”? How will the Department define circumstances that amount to force majeure in these cases? That may be a difficult question but there must be some guidelines in relation to what circumstances are beyond or outside people's control.
Every case will be decided on its merits. There are a number of cases in which people claim that, because of family circumstances, particularly for health reasons, they were not aware or made aware of their rights under the social welfare code and because of this, they were precluded from applying. There have been cases of exceptional circumstances which dictated that no cut-off was made in relation to late payments. There are cases which have been accepted where people were, through no fault of their own, in effect disenfranchised from their entitlement.
Is it the case that, where special circumstances or circumstances outside the control of the person are agreed by the Department, these proportional payments apply?
In relation to circumstances, no.
What I want tied down is this. I believe in most cases people did not apply for their pension on reaching the qualifying age for a very good reason — they did not know they were entitled to it. Would the Minister agree?
Yes, in some circumstances or most circumstances, but not in all circumstances.
The Minister says "in most circumstances". What he says is important because, in a sense, he will be giving directions to deciding officers and, to a lesser extent, appeals officers over whom he has, or should have, no control — he has control over deciding officers. If the Minister is stating that every pensioner whose claim was late due to ignorance, bad advice, etc. — in other words, their claim was late because they did not know — is entitled to their pension?
I am not saying that. Every case is decided on its merits. That would continue to be the position irrespective of whether the regulations were in place. The regulations put it on a better standing for people in certain categories who have not been able to avail of their entitlement, but there is the continuing extra statutory provisions, which have applied for some considerable time, which allowed some discretion. It was, in effect, a sanction from the Department of Finance in order to ensure that there was some flexibility in regard to people who, for whatever reason, did not claim on time.
There must be a cut-off. One cannot continuously allow an open door because Departments, and particularly my Department which deals with huge amounts of money, could not be exposed to potential claims forever and a day. It would only be fair to expect that, while the State has a duty to provide sustenance for people, there is also a contrary duty on people to ensure that they are aware of their entitlements. It is not for want of information.
However, there are circumstances where people, perhaps through no fault of their own, are not aware of their entitlements. That is why we have responded to the exhortations of the Ombudsman who is aware of a number of cases. He acknowledges that it is a very difficult area.
Does the Minister agree that there are many people working and making contributions who are not sure whether their contributions entitle them to pensions? There are many people who work part-time and the nature of the contribution they have been making in the past did not qualify them for pension.
Many people on reaching the normal retirement age of 65 or 66 continued working part-time, although they are entitled to pension because they had the correct number of contributions and the nature of their contributions were such that unbeknown to them, they were entitled to a form of contributory old age or contributory retirement pension. There are many such cases throughout the country. Can the Minister give an undertaking that that would be taken as a force majeure case — in other words, these are circumstances outside of the control of the person?
I can see that officers of the Department will err on the side of caution in these matters in the sense that they will feel that any circumstances outside the claimant's control would have to be exceptional. The officers will not accept them because the law has stated it is up to the person to claim his or her pension. I believe there should be an obligation on the Department that, on reaching the qualifying age for a pension, every qualifying person should receive a letter from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs informing them of their entitlement well in advance of their 65th or 66th birthday, whichever is relevant. Will the Minister undertake to do that to improve the information to such applicants?
Every effort is made by the Department to ensure that people are made aware of their entitlements. Every public representative will recognise that, over the years, this Department more than any other, has been to the fore in this regard. The information emanating from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs is second to none in that respect.
There always has been the exceptional circumstances provision whereby, in effect, the Minister had some discretion, obviously on the advice of officials and subject to Department of Finance sanction. I would hazard a guess that that provision was not used very often over the years. That is why the Department has responded, with sanction from the Department of Finance, to introduce regulations which will deal with a substantial number of these particular cases on a statutory basis.
However, it was not possible given the budgetary constraints to go all the way because the figures are quite dramatic. Full back dating would cost in the region of £6 million per year, plus a once-off payment to existing beneficiaries of £70 million. The Senator can see from that that there would be a huge cost if everything was to be included.
The Social Welfare Act, 1997, contained the power to make these regulations and it applies only from 1 January 1997. That was inserted by my predecessor as the operative date and it excluded any claims made before 1 January 1997.
That is not true.
Therefore, even as it stands, although I accept that I am now the Minister, under the 1997 Act I am only allowed to treat by regulation claims made after 1 January 1997. The proposals as per the regulations, for which I was lucky enough to receive sanction from the Department of Finance, will cost £1.7 million this year. As I said, this is a significant improvement on the position which has obtained to date. The extra cost of up to £24 million to back date these provisions had to be balanced against other budgetary constraints. We have gone some way to address the views expressed by the Ombudsman.
As regards the way this matter will be dealt with by the Department, it will obviously take time as with any regulations to see what practice arises. Cognisance should be taken of the fact that these regulations have been in place a month or two, and that over the coming months and, indeed, years a precedent will be created as to how the regulations have been dealt with by the Department. Obviously, as the Senator said, it is always subject to the appeals procedure, which is independent, under the social welfare appeals office.
Is the amendment being pressed?
This is an important point. I accept what the Minister said about cost but had all those people claimed their pensions on time, that money would have been spent by the State anyway. That is the reality. One can take the other view, that the Department will not tell the people of their entitlements in the sneak belief that they will not claim them and because that does not impose a cost on the Department, while the Department of Finance has collected pension contributions as high as 6 per cent or 7 per cent from the income of these people during their working lives.
On Second Stage I stated that if such a proportion of a person's income was placed in a private pension fund, a substantial sum of money would accrue over a period. The company which made deductions from their salaries would have no right to withhold payment if they were late in claiming it. I contribute to a private pension fund and if, on reaching 65 years of age, I made a late claim for payment from the insurance company to which I paid my contributions, it would be obliged to pay me the full arrears. The same principle should be applied to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. It is as simple as that.
I do not know if the Minister is familiar with comments in the Ombudsman's report about what the Council of Europe stated in respect of cases of this kind. Those comments should be taken on board. I have communicated with officials from the Office of the Ombudsman in respect of this matter and they are not satisfied with the Minister's efforts to take their recommendations on board. If the Minister cannot concede to the amendment, I will be obliged to refer this matter back to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman makes a further report which clearly states that he is not satisfied with the provisions in the Bill, would the Minister be willing to soften his attitude?
In the cases under discussion, the Department is trying to balance what is necessary on one hand and what is possible on the other. Much of what is taken into account relates to the exposure of the Exchequer to additional cost. As stated earlier, if the amendment was accepted the overall cost would be horrendous. However, that is not to say that those people who did not make claims were not in receipt of other social welfare payments which would have tided them over during the period in question. Perhaps some of the costs involved would not have been as high as indicated.
We are attempting to address a difficult situation. People cannot state they have no responsibility in respect of applying for their entitlements. The Department has endeavoured to advise people of their entitlements on all occasions. If people do not receive those entitlements because they received incorrect information or they were incapacitated, they should be entitled to full payment and there is provision for that. The exceptional circumstances under which people are entitled to arrears were expanded in the regulations in order to comply with a number of issues raised by the Ombudsman's report.
This issue was dealt with by the previous Government which decided that the type of claims under discussion would be excluded prior to 1 January 1997 and introduced legislation to give effect to that. On entering office, I discovered that the regulations had to be considered and implemented and detailed negotiations took place with the Department of Finance and the Ombudsman. The regulations have only been in place for two months and the Department will monitor the situation to see how they cater for upcoming cases.
As already stated, anyone who fits the criteria listed in the regulations in respect of incapacity or incorrect information will be entitled to claim full payment. The regulations offer an acceptable balance and we should be given an opportunity to see how they operate.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Connor, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Manning, Maurice.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Ridge, Thére se.
Níl
- Bonner, Enda.
- Chambers, Frank.
- Dardis, John.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Leonard, Ann.
- Lydon, Don.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Moylan, Pat.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Ormonde, Ann.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Connor and Ridge; Nil, Senators Farrell and Keogh.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to refer to the provisions for multiple births. Although I cannot declare an interest in the matter, my wife and I are the parents of Quinns. However, it appears that while triplets and quadruplets are recognised as multiple births twins are omitted from the category. I recognise the steps the Minister is taking to help parents with multiple births. There is an extra strain in the heavy burden of responsibility for such parents. The Minister has proposed welcome measures whereby parents of triplets and quadruplets will receive twice the benefit per child. However, there is discrimination against twins because the benefit is granted to them at one and a half times the rate. That is nonetheless generous compared to the previous arrangements. The Minister has also provided for grants to be payable to the parents of multiple births when the children are at the ages of 4 and 12 years.
The Minister should give consideration to this discrimination against the parents of twins. There is a greater onus of responsibility and burden of cost placed on the parents when there are extra children. The Minister has recognised this and it has been recognised since 1965. However, to rectify this discrimination would not incur considerable additional cost. I would welcome it if the Minister gave this issue consideration, if not at this stage then certainly in the future.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue and for his remarks. Fianna Fáil's election manifesto and An Action Programme for the Millennium put together by ourselves and the Progressive Democrats gave a commitment to give 150 per cent, which is exactly what I did in this budget. It was an issue in our programme on which I believed we should deliver as quickly as possible. As I said on Second Stage, the envelope of money available to me, although very generous, meant that increases in ordinary child benefit were not as large as I would have liked.
There are 12,500 families with sets of twins and it is a very strong lobby. I do not have twins but I have been told that for some reason County Louth has the highest proportion of twins per head of population, which may have to do with the good air. I was very taken by strong lobbying from the organisation involved and by parents and public representatives from all parties. In recent years Governments looked at this issue but did not do much because it was believed there was substantial cost involved. There was some tinkering in relation to the types of grants given. Because of the changes I made, I had to make other changes to align grants for multiple births other than twins.
The budget provides for increases in child benefit of £28.38 million in a full year, which is considerably more than the amount in the previous year. This includes a 50 per cent increase costing £1.6 million in 1998 and £4.8 million in a full year in the monthly rate of child benefit payable in respect of twins or the remaining two qualifying children of another multiple birth. There are 170 sets of triplets or more in receipt of child benefit as compared with 12,500 sets of twins. Recognising the special difficulties faced by parents in the event of multiple births, this Bill increases the normal rate of child benefit payable to one and a half times in the case of twins. In real terms, this increase means the parents of twins will receive a payment of £94.50 by way of child benefit if the twins are their only children from September. In other words, instead of getting two payments, they will get three payments for twins. If there are already two children in a family, a rate of £126 per month will be paid in respect of twins, bringing the total child benefit payable in that case to £189 per month. Members will see that this is a sizeable increase in the current corresponding payments which are £60, £78 and £138, respectively.
As I said, it was a key commitment Fianna Fáil made in its election manifesto and it was also transposed into the programme for Government. I was delighted to be able to fulfil that commitment. Within days of the budget being announced, the same organisation stated that we did not go as far as it would have liked but thanked us for what we had done. In a Department like the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, it boils down to allocating available resources.
Given that this was our first of four or five budgets, it was a significant step and was a total fulfilment of the commitment in our programme for Government. As to any further benefit in this respect, I will not give a hostage to fortune. Everything will be looked at in the context of upcoming budgets, but it will depend on the priority. I emphasise again that we have totally fulfilled the commitment we gave in our election manifesto.
I thank the Minister for his explanation and understand the difficulty presented. He explained that he hoped he would be able to do more in the next four or five budgets. Something which would cost very little would be the recognition of the lump sum payment paid at the ages of four and 12. There seems to be a large gap here, although I know the intention is to cater for children starting primary school and, subsequently, secondary school. It would perhaps cost very little to do something in the eight year interim period between the ages of four and 12 years. Perhaps this could be considered in a future budget. I recognise the Minister has met the commitment given in the manifesto. However, further steps would not only be welcome but would be readily availed of because they are necessary in this area.
The reason previous Governments did not go as far as I did in relation to twins was because of cost and other priorities. They tried to give grants at particular times which, in effect, was the least costly way of doing this and gave some recognition to the issue. At one stage, there was a suggestion that since we were doing something for twins, we should do away with grants altogether. However, I believed that was not what we should do. There has been a realignment to ensure triplets and other multiple births would not be disadvantaged in relation to the grants. The grants will be looked at in the coming years as will the overall position in relation to child benefit and twins generally.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
"7.—The Minister shall consider the possibility of introducing a Parents Child Care Supplement of £360 per annum for all children up to the age of 5 years to be paid directly to the mother through the Child Benefit Scheme and shall lay a report on this proposal on the table of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann within 3 months of the passing of this Act."
I referred to this issue on Second Stage and would like to press it further. The Minister will note the amendment seeks that a report be laid before the House. I am looking for information on what would be a new departure in terms of payments to women in the home for child care. We are approaching a new millennium and it is time to deal with this issue in a positive way, bearing in mind that women in the home have been like shadows for many years. We did not even get the £9.60 we were supposed to get from Garret FitzGerald a long time ago.
I ask that the payment not be made through the tax allowance. I appreciate there was grave disappointment when there was no provision for child care in the allowances for couples and others with children. This is not an equitable way in which to proceed. The proposal made in the Lower House and which my amendment suggests seeks a new direction as regards how we look after families, whether a single parent and child or a couple with children of pre-school age.
It is crucial something positive and definite is done. If reliefs are confined to the tax system, they are unlikely to benefit those who need them most, including single parents whose incomes are slightly above the qualifying levels for State intervention. We should try and help those who have always tried to help themselves but could not because of financial constraints. Surely the options of staying at home to care for children or availing of a good preschool system could be given to parents, mothers especially. I cannot understand why this is not done, given the buoyant economy. I appreciate the matter is being studied by the Commission on the Family.
I ask the Minister not to rule out my amendment because it is different or because it does not fit in with the promise made by Fianna Fáil to deal with child care through tax relief. This could be a new way of dealing with the problem. It would acknowledge for the first time that the woman in the home with small children is a person in her own right and is deserving of this extra income to allow her to give her children a positive start. It would also be a good support for the family, something which is part of the Minister's brief.
The commission is expected to report this year. Will the Minister examine the possibility of a child care supplement of £360 per annum for all children up to the age of five years paid directly to the mother through the child benefit scheme and issue a report on it? I realise the scheme would be implemented on a phased basis as one cannot expect the Minister to immediately find the money for such a major scheme. However, the scheme would be equitable and would be in the interests of the family, specifically women and preschool children.
I thank the Senator for her contribution. There was a lengthy discussion on child care on Committee and Report Stages of the Bill in the Dáil. It is an issue which must be addressed due to the changing circumstances and fabric of society. The State has an input but it is also a broader issue involving the social partners, especially employers. That is why Partnership 2000 set up an expert working group to examine the issue of child care. Proposals such as the Senator's will be taken into account in the ongoing discussions.
I provided an additional sum in the budget of £38.27 million for child income supports. This is £5 million more than was provided for in the previous budget. This sum represents over 30 per cent of the funds available to me in the budget envelope for improvements in the social welfare system.
In addition to monetary support, the report of the Commission on the Family will be published shortly and it will provide an overall picture of family life in Ireland and the challenges which face families as we move towards the millennium. Child care and the provision of services for young children were significant topics in the submissions to the commission. One in three of all submissions, or about 550 in total, dealt with these topics and I believe the number of submissions is an all-time high to this type of commission. Quality child care was seen as important not just to parents who work outside the home but also for mothers who work full-time in the home.
To assist its work, the commission undertook a national survey of child care arrangements families make for their children and this was carried out by the ESRI. The preliminary findings are that one in three preschool children experience periods of care outside the home and away from their parents for some time of the week. That is estimated at about 77,000 young children. Some 75 per cent or 79,000 children below the age of two are cared for at home by a parent. The next most common child care arrangement applicable to 13 per cent or 13,200 children under two is care by a childminder in the minder's home. Almost 20 per cent or 21,600 children aged two to three years attend a nursery, crèche or other preschool service. Some 99 per cent of all five year olds and almost 50 per cent of four year olds are at school. We are better in comparison with other EU countries because their children attend school at the age of six whereas our children are already at school at that age. They enter the education system between the ages of four and five.
What is emerging from the commission's report is that it is the care of children up to the age of three which must be examined. The results of this survey indicate a varied approach among families to the care of young people. These various approaches reflect the dramatic changes in the labour market, gender roles and family life generally which have occurred in recent years. The commission's report will provide new insights into the understanding of the complex web of human activity represented by today's family life and will make a major contribution to overall child care policy. The relevant recommendations of the commission's report will be considered by the expert working group established under Partnership 2000 which operates under the auspices of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Minister for Finance stated in his budget speech that, as promised in Fianna Fáil's election manifesto and the programme for Government agreed between ourselves and the Progressive Democrats, he would consider tax relief on child care in the light of the various reports available. We gave key commitments in that regard which feed into the considerations of the expert working group. The Minister for Finance indicated in the budget that, based on deliberations, he would bring forward proposals soon and, it is hoped, in the next budget.
Tax allowance is one approach but it does not deal with the entire spectrum of the nation's requirements as regards child care facilities. The Minister was criticised for not dealing with the matter in his first budget. However, it is a broad issue and that is one of the reasons he decided to wait until the expert working group established under Partnership 2000 came forward with its proposals.
The approach would obviously be an interdepartmental one within the State sector and would have implications for employers and other social partners. As I have stated internally within my own party and publicly as a Minister, this is an issue which must be addressed in a very comprehensive way. For those reasons, I would ask the Senator to withdraw her amendment.
Although the Minister has asked me very nicely to withdraw the amendment, I feel I must persist in pressing it. The Minister referred to the very broad canvas of the entire child care area which links into family and employment and to the fact that the Minister for Finance decided not to proceed with the implementation of tax measures because of possible anomalies which would arise. However, I think I am justified in pressing the amendment, although I take on board the fact that the working group will consider all reasonable suggestions made to it.
I appreciate that at the end of the day we need a system which will work. Mothers, in particular, are the mainstays of families and support for the role of women in the home and the securing of good child care would be a very positive boon to this country and would not do the Minister's image any harm either. I accept that the Minister's goodwill in this matter is tangible and he will, I am sure, accept my need to press the amendment in order to try to ensure the inclusion of this sensible proposal in the Bill. It is important to bear in mind that the amendment merely seeks that a report on the proposal be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Section 10 refers to the disregard of income accruing to smallholders from REPS and SAC grants. I am not familiar with SAC payments although I do have knowledge of the REPS ones. I did not think SAC payments had yet been put in place because of certain difficulties experienced in relation to them. Can the Minister provide any more background information on this section? Is there an upper limit on the amount of money which can be earned or disregarded under REPS and does a similar disregard apply to any earnings generated by grant aid under the SAC scheme? I am not aware that any such cases exist at present under the SAC scheme in terms of income supplements being paid to small farmers or any other group of people.
The REPS issue was one about which a great number of representations were made even after the publication of the Bill, mainly by people within my own party. Those representations basically referred to the assessment of means for smallholders. Under the provisions introduced in the Social Welfare Bill, 1996, the first £2,000 under REPS was disregarded for the purposes of assessing means for unemployment assistance, pre-retirement allowance and old age non-contributory pensions. In addition, any costs incurred by farmers in implementing the agri-environment plan, as provided for under REPS, were also offset against any other income from farming activities in the assessment of means.
The Social Welfare Bill, 1998 provides for an extension of the existing REPS disregard to the new scheme of compensation for compliance with SAC conditions, introduced by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.
That disregard has not yet been introduced.
In addition to the above extension, a previous amendment proposed to ease the assessment of money received under REPS and to introduce a compensation scheme for compliance with SAC conditions for social welfare. After the publication of the Social Welfare Bill, I decided to bring forward a further amendment which would provide that the first £2,000 would continue to be disregarded for SACs, with the balance being assessed at 50 per cent. There are approximately 8,000 recipients of smallholders' UA but there are no accurate figures as to how many of those are receiving grant aid under REPS.
I want to interrupt the Minister for a moment to welcome the honourable members of the Irish Law Society to the House.
The current level of uptake of REPS among all farmers stands at 25 per cent. Assuming there is a similar level of uptake among smallholders, we estimate that in the region of 2,000 smallholders in receipt of UA are also in receipt of payments under REPS. Strong representations have been made to me to the effect that typical REPS payments to smallholders are very low. The average smallholding is approximately 30 acres and attracts a REPS payments in the region of £2,000. For farmers in SACs, the new compensation arrangements would increase the £2,000 payment to approximately £2,500. As the SACs are not optional, we decided to introduce a further allowance for SACs and that was welcomed by people who were put out about the fact that the means assessment was constraining them in some way in regard to compensation payments.
Payments under the SACs have not yet been introduced. I urge the Minister to make the strongest possible representations to his colleagues, the Ministers for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and Agriculture and Food to ensure that these payments are made as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome the improvements made to carer's allowance in this section. However, the requirement that a carer must live with the person being cared for must be considered carefully. Hundreds of people throughout the country are in need of care. That care may be provided by a friend, relative or family member although the carer may not live with the person being cared for because the necessary accommodation may not be available. Many other Members made this point in both Houses on Second and Committee Stages.
I accept the Senator's comments. As I stated in my reply to the Second Stage debate, a substantial review is ongoing and the issue of full-time care and attention is one which will be considered together with the issue of residency. There are difficulties currently in that respect but I would like to think that the review would throw up some pointers in the run up to next year's budget which would allow me to take some action in that respect. An interdepartmental working group is considering the whole issue of carer's allowance. That review involves the Department of Health and Children because the issue impinges on it also. We are taking a broad view and the issues raised by the Senator will be examined in that respect.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the contributors in the Seanad debate and as I did not have an opportunity to thank contributors in the Dáil I do so now. The spokespersons and other speakers expressed pertinent views. This is the first Bill I have brought forward as Minister. It is substantial and I am delighted to be part of the effort by my officials to prepare it. I compliment them and the staff of the House for their assistance with the passage of the Bill. I look forward to working with Members of the Seanad, the Dáil and the Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs to improve on this Bill next year.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
On Tuesday next at 2.30 a.m.
The Seanad adjourned at 12.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 31 March 1998.