Social Welfare Benefits: Motion.

Ms Terry

I move:

That Seanad Eireann, condemns the Government for its failure to modernise the current social welfare system and specifically calls on the Government to address the following in the upcoming budget;

—to honour its commitment in its programme for Government to introduce a personal pension entitlement for pensioner spouses currently in receipt of the qualified adult allowance, set at the level of a full non-contributory pension;

—the fact that those eligible for qualified adult payments do not receive payments directly;

—the fact that many people in voluntary work or caring work cannot have their work covered by PRSI "stamps";

—the fact that certain child dependant payments are not paid directly to the primary carer; and

—the fact that home carer's tax credits have not been increased since the introduction of tax individualisation.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, is welcome to the House. It gives me great pleasure to propose this motion, which if implemented would make a significant difference to the lives of many people. The social welfare system should reflect the changing society we have today, which is completely different to that of 20 or 30 years ago. It is high time that the system was modernised and I recommend that the Minister do so. I know he is making some strides in that regard but much more must be done.

The social welfare system must recognise gender equality and provide economic independence for men and women. It must recognise women's participation in the labour market, which has changed significantly in recent years. In the wider context it must address matters such as enhancing work-life balance and the prevention of adult and child poverty. Unfortunately, despite our good economy we have a very high incidence of poverty among women and children.

The main gaps in the social insurance system involve people working full time as homemakers, relatives assisting and atypical workers. The Minister is aware that women make up 95% of qualified adults. In 2000, approximately 28,000 women were qualified adults of spouses or partners on pensions. I do not have current figures, perhaps the Minister can assist me in that regard. The 2002 programme for Government made the following commitment, "We will introduce a personal pension entitlement for pensioner spouses currently in receipt of qualified adult allowance set at the level of the full non-contributory pension."

Reform of the qualified adult allowance rates for pensions is critical for older women who at the age of 65 have a 41% chance of being below the 60% poverty line. The low number of people on social welfare means that the forthcoming budget is an ideal time and a great opportunity for the Minister to honour the 2002 commitment to increase the qualified adult rate to 100% of the personal payment for all payments. I will remind the Minister of that again and I will be extremely disappointed if he does not deliver on it.

Regarding direct payments, where a woman is dependent on her husband for income, her vulnerability to abuse and violence is increased. In order to shift this power dynamic and increase the economic independence of women, qualified adult payments must be paid directly to the qualified adult. I recognise that since October 2002, qualified spouses and partners of people entitled to a retirement or old age pension have been given the choice of having their part of the payment paid directly to them. However, an extremely small proportion of people have opted for this, and those who did apparently acted in response to problems in the internal household distribution of income. Thousands of others must be afraid to opt for it because it would cause household tension. To eliminate that possibility we should bring this about as a right rather than an option. That matter could be easily addressed by the Minister in the forthcoming budget.

The system of disregarding years spent working in the home devalues the work of homemakers and does not allow parents or carers working in the home sufficient entitlement to contributory pensions. By giving credits to homemakers with children up to the age of 12 for a maximum of 20 years, the Government will give recognition to the importance of parenting. Potentially, this affects 531,000 women officially designated as on home duties in Ireland. That is an extremely large number. Applying this measure retrospectively would allow women who have been carers from 1973 onwards the maximum 20 years credit for time spent caring, which could have positive implications for eligibility for a pension at the age of 66. This would include women required to give up work due to the marriage bar, which operated until 1973. The National Council on Ageing and Older People supports this measure.

It is vitally important that we respect traditional choices and do not force change on women and men who have made valid life choices. Concerns have been expressed that women over the age of 55 should not be forced into the labour market. The National Women's Council of Ireland in its publication entitled A Woman’s Model for Social Welfare Reform stated, “these women should be facilitated towards independent entitlement through the use of pre-retirement allowances or credits”.

What are the Minister's views on making voluntary work subject to PRSI? This type of work includes parenting and caring and would allow people in this area to build up an independent social insurance record. I wish to bring to the Minister's attention the plight of so-called "relatives assisting" and farming women. The relatives assisting are often spouses of business owners and usually women. It is suggested there should be at least obligatory insurance of all workers in family businesses. Legislation could be changed to enable self-employed people to ensure their spouses and relatives assisting are fully insured.

Farming women constitute a category of women working in family businesses who may face specific difficulties in arriving at self-employed status. Only 3% of farms are in joint ownership and men own 93% of farms. I was stunned to learn of this figure. While 50% of farm women have independent income and social insurance, the Irish Farmers Association has identified that the remaining 50% have no independent pension rights. This group should also be covered by social insurance.

Facilitation of what is termed the "buying a stamp" model, by which people could self-insure with administrative ease could be useful for localised purchase of social insurance and would also facilitate women who work in the informal economy. I await the Minister's response to the National Women's Council of Ireland's recommendations which I would also like to see implemented. The recommendations include the introduction of a part-time unemployment benefit and assistance for parents with children aged one to 12, so that women seeking part-time work would have their part-time unemployment recognised; a change in the S57 SI 312 1996 rule in respect of eligibility for credits to enable a re-entry credit for home-makers re-entering the system; and the abolition of the limitation rule. The rationale behind these recommendations is that part-time work is closely correlated with the age of school-going children rather than young babies. Women with older children are more likely to enter or re-enter the workforce when they can work part time. Over one third of unemployed women say they are seeking part-time work. Consequently, a social welfare system that only recognises availability for full-time work clearly cannot accommodate all women.

To facilitate women's transition from care work and parenting to paid employment, the introduction of part-time unemployment assistance and benefit is necessary. The two-year rule, whereby a person with no social insurance record for more than two years must have 26 paid contributions before credits can be awarded, is particularly unfair to women as it prevents those women with interrupted employment patterns from accessing benefits. By allowing homemakers to maintain a link with the labour market through entitling them to avail of labour market supports in their own right and by abolishing the two-year rule, the Government would facilitate the transition from home-making to paid employment.

The limitation rule limits the amount of benefits that two adults who are eligible for social assistance payments can receive. It assumes that two people can live more cheaply than one, thereby saving up to 15% of costs between them. Research highlights practical difficulties in determining actual economies as they differ from household to household and there is a question whether they exist.

The limitation rule has led to a greater number of women being classed as adult dependants. It also affects lone parents considering living with or marrying an unemployed man. Changes in society must be acknowledged and an effort must be made to address new issues. Women must be provided with choice and barriers must not be put in their way.

The inequalities and discrimination against women that I have outlined must be addressed by the Minister. Sufficient action has not been taken by the Government to address these matters. I hope the forthcoming budget and the healthy state of the Government's coffers will enable the Minister to address many of them. Women's economic independence must be increased, older women's poverty should be addressed and women's care work and access to employment should be facilitated.

The Minister has admitted that the present social welfare system is unfair. I compliment him for that statement. However, I remind him that actions speak louder than words. I hope following the budget he will take the necessary action to ensure that the social welfare system is modernised and that it is not unfair.

Mr. B. Hayes

I second the motion. I thank Senator Terry for tabling it and consistently raising this matter on behalf of the Fine Gael group. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Brennan, to the House. He is aware that the Department over which he has control rarely initiates legislation; the significant Bill every year is the Social Welfare Bill which follows the budget. It is difficult for Members on both sides to cram everything into one Bill every year. I welcome the opportunity to debate with the Minister many of these anomalies highlighted by Senator Terry in her motion.

I was very encouraged by the Minister's remarks since becoming what used to be called the Minister for Social Welfare. He has shown an ability to think outside the box. Speaking as a former spokesperson in this area I am aware the Department is an administrative one. The Minister's job is to administer schemes that have been built up over the years since the first Social Welfare Bill went through the Houses. A change in one part of the social welfare code has a knock-on effect on other parts of the code. In this regard the Minister has spoken bravely about the problems for lone parents and poverty traps. In the context of preparing the budget I ask him to deal with the issues raised by Senator Terry.

It is a disgrace that older women who were forced out of the public service workforce by the marriage bar are not entitled to a pension in their own right. The State forced these women out of jobs. In many cases they might have gone on to become assistant secretaries and Secretaries General of Departments. Some 40 years on, these women have no recognition by the State of that great injustice done to them. The group is getting smaller each year because of the age cohort. This is a matter which should be addressed.

A more modern issue which affects both men and women is the choice made for one spouse, usually the woman, to leave the labour market for a period of approximately eight or nine years in order to work at home raising their children. This is a conscious choice made by parents. We are often told that every modern couple has a double income but that is not the case. Approximately 50% of such couples choose to have a spouse stay at home. The financial consequences of such a decision are that one cannot move to a more well-to-do area, go to the Canaries three times a year or put money aside for the children to go to private schools, if these are the choices. The State needs to recognise that not all households have two incomes. When families decide, for whatever reason, that one spouse will stay at home for eight or nine years to raise children, the State has a responsibility to recognise their decision. In this scenario, the person who stays at home should be entitled to continue to make contributions to the PRSI system. I do not suggest they get something for nothing but that they be allowed to contribute to the social insurance fund, which is, at any rate, enjoying a massive surplus. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House as to the current position of the fund, which I understand has been healthy for some years.

If women who look after children during their formative years were allowed to contribute to the PRSI system, they could perhaps pay a higher stamp if they subsequently choose to return to the labour market. It is immoral that eight years spent at home caring for children can be considered irrelevant in terms of reckonable pension contributions. This approach prevents people from making choices and fails to recognise families who decide to rely on one income. Those who stay at home, the vast majority of whom are women, must be facilitated. This group is not confined to women aged in their 50s or 60s but includes women with children who consciously decide that they may be able to afford to stay at home and look after their children. The families in question do not always have large incomes.

In introducing tax individualisation, the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, also established the home carer's tax credit to recognise those who choose to stay at home to care for a child or dependent relative. This credit has not been increased in five years. While there is no doubt, as the amendment notes, that every family has benefited from increases in personal and PAYE tax credits, two-income couples have fared much better proportionally from these annual increases than one-income families. If it was correct to introduce a tax credit as a means of recognising home carers, why has the Government failed to increase the home carer's tax credit in any of the five years since Mr. McCreevy's third budget which introduced tax individualisation? The Government, if it is sincere in supporting all income and family types, must address this issue.

I welcome the decision to cease using the despicable phrase "adult dependant" in the social welfare system and replace it with the term "qualifying adult". Senator Terry made a valid point in this regard. Although persons receiving the qualifying adult rate can obtain the payment directly, one could argue that they should receive it automatically and as of right. Relationships being as they are, a woman who receives this payment on a weekly or monthly basis through the social welfare code has a right to it. I do not suggest that the State should act as the eyes and ears of families but if a person is entitled to a payment, he or she should receive it as of right. The low take-up referred to by Senator Terry is a matter of concern.

While I welcome the continuing reduction in the once significant disparity between contributory and non-contributory old age pensions, much of it can be ascribed to the fact that women were forced out of work.

If one group of women has been badly let down by successive Governments, it is widows, particularly young widows. The provisions made for women who find themselves widowed are appalling. Like me, the Minister will have encountered numerous tragic cases in which a husband has died prematurely leaving a young widow at the head of a family. Much more needs to do done for widows and I ask the Minister to ensure action is taken when the social welfare provisions of the budget are being framed. It is often argued that the level of paid contributions will have been insignificant and having a differential scheme would, therefore, be wrong. However, losing a spouse at a young age is an unexpected, albeit infrequent, event.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Minister before he frames the social welfare package. I ask him to consider the points raised in this debate and deliver equity, fairness and decency in the social welfare system while ensuring it does not discriminate against women.

Ms Cox

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

—commends the Government on the progress that has been made in introducing a personal pension entitlement for pensioner spouses currently in receipt of the qualified adult allowance;

—notes the introduction in October 2002 of the option for new pension claimants to have the qualified adult portion of their pension paid directly to their spouse or partner and commends the Government on its plans to review the administrative and legislative implications of enhancing these arrangements to ensure that more qualified adults can receive a direct payment;

—commends the Government on the measures it has implemented to extend the levels of social protection and enhance the social inclusion aspects of the social insurance system;

—notes that child benefit is the main social welfare support paid in respect of children, that this is in most cases paid directly to the primary carer and commends the Government for the very significant progress made in improving this payment in recent years; and

—notes that couples to whom the home carer tax credit applies have benefitted from all the increases in personal and PAYE tax credits in the years since its introduction".

I welcome the Minister to the House. I propose to address a couple of social welfare related issues referred to in the motion and amendment, focusing specifically on child benefit. There is no doubt the Government is delivering the largest ever sustained increase in social welfare services. Social welfare benefits and vital supports have increased by three times the rate of inflation and since 1997 all the main social welfare benefits have increased by at least twice the rate of inflation.

As the Minister has stated on numerous occasions, including when he appeared before the House after last year's budget, Ireland spends more than €12 billion on welfare entitlements, double the figure spent just four years ago. This means that for every €3 of taxpayers' money spent by the State in 2004, €1 was allocated directly to child support. The rate of child benefit, which makes a significant difference in the lives of 550,000 people on lower social welfare rates, has increased fourfold in just over ten years.

The Government decision to increase rates for a single payment which goes straight to the heart of the issue of child care and addresses child poverty is a tremendous achievement and a reflection of its caring focus on children. In recent years, the increases in child benefit rates have helped address the unresolved issue of child care, on which the Minister is aware of my views. Having fulfilled its primary purpose, however, it is now time to consider child benefit anew. We must ask what was its original objective, what has been achieved and what still needs to be done to address the issue of child care. Is it time to introduce a different child benefit or an additional child care cost payment? Should a new benefit be made payable on the basis of the number of children in a family? Perhaps we should consider taxing any such additional child care payment and stop increasing child benefit once the forthcoming increases to which the Government committed itself in the programme for Government are made in the budget.

We should consider introducing a payment model focused on individual children. It could, for example, be set at a certain level for a child's early years, reduced from the ages of four to 13 years while the child is at primary school and perhaps further reduced during second level and stopped at university-going age. An alternative would be to stop payment once a child leaves national school. This model is fair because the payment would be universal. While it should not be means tested, those on high salaries who do not need it as much as others could have the payment taxed. In addition, tax credits or equivalents could be given for vouched child care expenses. In this way, those who choose to stay at home will receive a universal, non-means tested child care payment focused on the individual child and have the cost of child care addressed. The hard part is that for any child care payment to make a difference, it must be equivalent to 25% of the cost per month, which is approximately €150 per child. If we provided that in the next budget or even started the process, building up to its full implementation in the budget after next, we would be taking the single most fundamental and radical initiative on the issue.

There is also the question of disregarding income. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs will recall that we talked to him about the importance of building into the social welfare system a disregard for income earned by stay-at-home child carers. Those men and women — mostly the latter — constitute an untaxed economy of looking after children. They provide a valuable social service by caring for two, three or four children in their own home to earn a weekly income that in many cases is not declared for taxation purposes. That income should be disregarded. Taking the social welfare and taxation systems together, we can use this opportunity to make radical differences in how we address child care and its cost, which, as has been said many times here, in some households is more than what is spent on the mortgage. That is not sustainable and cannot work.

Within the same ambit, I would like to deal with paid maternity leave, which is capped at a maximum of €249 per week. For many people, particularly those paid a great deal more, that €249 reflects nothing of the cost of living in their household. They have mortgages to pay and costs associated with insurance, VHI, car loans and other general living expenses. If a woman takes maternity leave and receives no top-up from her employer, something not all companies can afford, the family suffers a significant loss in the money it takes home to pay its monthly bills.

I am not pleading that we increase that money for those 18 weeks. Instead, I am asking that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs consider extending the number of paid maternity weeks from the current 18. I am happy to accept its rising in two-week stages from 18 to 26 weeks as part of an overall child care strategy. In such a manner, between two and four years from now, paid maternity benefit would be available to women for 26 rather than 18 weeks. In conjunction with that, we could introduce paid parental leave. We have carer's benefit and leave, and we addressed taking time off from work to look after people with disabilities or special needs and old or sick relatives. We must pay for carer's leave. We should plan that, by the end of 2008, we will have a full 52-week year of paid maternity and parental leave, the latter to be taken by either the mother or the father. In that way, if people so chose, they could spend the first year of every baby's life at home. If we could do that and make our contribution, it would be the most radical thing ever done in the history of the State.

I have very little time left, but regarding the Department of Social and Family Affairs, an MRBI customer survey in 2001 showed that 90% were satisfied with the information they had received from it and the services provided. The Minister ought to be proud of that level of satisfaction. It has been my experience that the information and assistance provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs to those with whom it has dealt are something of which it should be proud and with which it should continue to follow through. I wish I had more time, but I wanted to acknowledge that.

Mr. Bannon

I thought for a moment that the motion concerned child care. However, I compliment Senator Cox on outlining areas where the Government has failed, which include that sector. She spoke in great detail and acknowledged the fact that very little has been done in the area by the current or previous Government.

Ms Cox

I did not say or acknowledge any such thing.

Mr. Bannon

No major review of the social welfare system has taken place since the establishment of the Commission on Social Welfare in 1983. That contrasts poorly with other areas, such as health and education, in which we know that there has been an embarrassment of riches when it comes to reviews and reports. Unfortunately, as we know only too well, there has been very little Government implementation. During my term as a member of the Midland Health Board, approximately 128 reports were presented by the Government, with little or no action.

While it has lacked the periodic review common in other areas, social welfare has seen three official reports on the system. The first, published in 1949, was a White Paper on social security. There were also two Green Papers, on a national income-related pension scheme in 1976, and on social insurance for the self-employed in 1998. I am sure that the Minister would agree that an update is overdue.

The first of the three reports appeared five years after publication of the 1942 Beveridge report, which revolutionised the British social welfare system. That report had an impact on Ireland and led to a children's allowance being established here in 1944, one year ahead of Britain. The main vehicle for social reform has traditionally been pre-budget submissions, with the most important concern being payment rates. It was through such a submission in 1982 that the National Social Services Board called for the establishment of a commission to carry out a fundamental review of the system. The commitment to establish such a review was part of the programme of the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government that entered office in December 1982. The commission's main terms of reference were "to review and report on the social welfare system and related social services and to make recommendations for their development having regard to the needs of modern Irish society".

The Minister will agree that modern Irish society has changed and evolved since 1983, but the Government has failed to modernise the social welfare system. Fine Gael calls on this lame duck Government to address and amend social welfare provisions in the upcoming budget in the light of current needs and entitlements. The main aim of social policy and social welfare is the alleviation of poverty, although Charles Murray sounded a note of caution regarding anti-poverty policy in the US when he wrote that "we tried to provide for the poor and produced more poor instead". This Government is certainly guilty of producing or permitting poverty among its citizens, and we are currently second only to the United States with regard to the relatively high proportion of the population living in poverty.

For example, as we approach this House each morning and leave each evening, we see people sleeping in appalling conditions in doorways, something mirrored in every town in the country. That must be a great embarrassment to a Dublin-based Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the current lame duck Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. They should be named and shamed as the Government responsible for our spending much less on social protection than other European countries, with the greatest gap between rich and poor of any member state.

Let us recall the millions of euro of taxpayers' money wasted on aborted schemes such as e-voting, PPARS, Abbotstown, the faulty port tunnel and, last but not least, the website that never saw the light of day. It is the Minister's job to deal with that, but year after year nothing happens. The gap widens, and successive social welfare and pension Bills fail to rectify the problem. According to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, more than 50,000 householders are on the waiting list for social housing, and the estimated number of homeless households remains high, in 2002 totalling 3,773, compared with 3,743 in 1999. The number of children living in overcrowded, damp houses that are in disrepair has more than doubled between 1991 and 2002.

President McAleese is quoted in today's edition of The Irish Times as saying at the Filling the Vacuum conference that Ireland is at a crossroads where it could seek to become an equal society in which there was compassion for others, or a State wrapped in individualism, deaf to the voices of the excluded. We know this Government is deaf and blind when it comes to the marginalised in our society. My colleague, Senator Terry, outlined the ways in which this Government has deliberately fostered social exclusion and the areas most affected. Why has the Minister turned his back on families and individuals who are struggling to survive on inadequate social welfare provision while the rich get richer with the assistance of this shameful Government?

The Minister must give serious consideration to the fuel allowance for the elderly and less well off. That has not been addressed by the Government although it has been in power for eight years. The neglect of our elderly, some of whom in rural areas are living in cold conditions, is shameful.

The Government has cut the essential repair and disabled persons grants for the elderly. When I was a councillor ten years ago, an elderly person could get up to £22,500 under the disabled persons grant, and £16,000 under the essential repair grant. The maximum elderly people are getting now in the disabled persons grant is €12,000 and the essential repair grant is a maximum of €5,000. It is a pittance compared to what the Minister should be paying to the elderly and less well off.

In a time of plenty, the elderly, sick and less well off are suffering most. That is the reality. The Government can have as many spin doctors as it wants but I am talking about the reality, something I know about as a person on the ground in touch with the community, as are all my colleagues. People on the Government side of the House turn a blind eye to reality but come the next general election, the people will be waiting in the long grass to give the Minister their answer.

Ms Ormonde

I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate the Government on the progress made to date. The Government will spend more than €12 billion on welfare entitlements, double the figure of only four years ago. For every €3 of taxpayers' money spent by the State in 2005, €1 will go to welfare support. This year, welfare benefits and vital supports have increased by three times the rate of inflation. Since 1997, all the main benefits have increased by at least twice the rate of inflation. Every week, almost 1 million welfare payments are made to 1.5 million men, women and children. Child benefit has increased fourfold in ten years. Almost 550,000 people on the lower welfare rates have received a sizable lift. The respite grant has been increased and extended, benefiting 30,000 carers. The Government is committed to increasing the State pension to €200 by 2007 and to increasing the lowest welfare rates to €150 by 2007. The Government is currently working on pensions, an issue I have often discussed with the Minister and to which he will refer when responding to the motion.

It is useful that we are having this debate today instead of after the budget when discussing the Social Welfare Bill. I do not have in-depth knowledge about how the system works. The Department of Social and Family Affairs operates a cumbersome system and its administration is difficult for me to understand. I have to read and re-read some of the legislation passed dealing with the respite grants offered. That is not to say that great work is not being done but the Department is not connecting with the public. The Minister referred to that himself and it is important in the modernisation of the structure and the implementation of benefits that will arise. The system should be simplified to allow the public to get on with commending the Government on its work to date.

The motion refers to personal pension entitlement for pensioners' spouses. I commend the Government on that concept; it is good that we should introduce it. The Government has introduced measures to extend the level of social protection and enhance social inclusion through the social insurance system and that is also very good — more people will have access to social welfare benefits.

Child benefit has improved. It is now paid to the mother or primary carer for the benefit of the child. Child benefit delivers a standard rate of payment in respect of all children in a family regardless of income levels or employment status without any PRSI conditions and it is not means tested or taxed.

The Minister should consider giving people the option of staying at home to mind their children. If I had my choice, that is where I would be putting emphasis. I would love to see women who want to stay at home being able to reach an arrangement with their employers where they could retain their career prospects when they decide to return to the workforce after four years. Child care must be more than that but I would like to see the Government making it easy for a mother to stay at home if she thought she could return to the workforce. That is where I would like to see children — in their own environment, rather than in crèches, which I have seen and am not happy with.

There are anomalies in administration and implementation. There are women who had to leave the public service because of the marriage ban. Many of them have not had their cases addressed and the Minister should examine this area.

I commend the Minister on the work he is doing. He has a grasp of this area, develops concepts clearly and delivers on them. I wish the Minister well in the budget. He has an important role because a great deal of money is allocated to his Department and it is only with the expertise of the Minister can we bring about a system that will be understood by the public at large.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the Minister to the House. I want to comment on the general topic of the motion without going into some of the specifics.

This is an important area. It touches people's real, lived experience and it is not appropriate for any of us to engage in a polemical, partisan series of attacks. What we must do in this House is urge the Minister to take as constructive a role in this area as possible and to be as helpful as possible.

I want to raise a number of issues that may, apparently, be marginal but at the same time are very important. When I first read the motion I was struck by the use of the word "spouse". I would make a serious point to the Minister, namely, that I abhor the way the Government behaved with regard to a case in the past few years that came before the Equality Tribunal established by the Government. This case involved a same-sex couple, one of whom felt that he should have been entitled to the same travel privileges as other employees' spouses. The Equality Tribunal found in favour of this couple but the response of the Government was not to move to redress the inequity or the discrimination but to move legislatively to copperfasten it by redefining the word "spouse". I know the Minister is a decent, intelligent and compassionate man but it is not appropriate in this day and age that people like me should be defined by legislation into second-class citizenship of this country. It is simply not acceptable any more and I regret very much, as an Irish citizen and as a representative in the Upper House of Parliament, that this Parliament processed and passed the only discriminatory legislative measure in this area that I know of in any European country over the past ten or 15 years. I hope this will be examined again because it is no longer acceptable that people are regarded, simply on the basis of sexual orientation, as being second-class citizens.

The other aspect I want to examine is a very specific area in which I know the Minister can have an impact. I am aware that things are moving and improving but I refer to the question of the social welfare appeals system. I raise this matter because I was asked during the week to launch a report on this by the Northside Community Law Centre. These are the most vulnerable and marginalised people. Most of the people who go through the appeals system have an income of less than €15,000 a year and are therefore on the margins. Many of them are people who have a disability and so on.

The first point that is made in this report, and it is a useful one, is that there is at least a perception of lack of independence because the appeals board is within the Department. In the course of preparing this report an internationally comparative survey was undertaken, which looked at the experience of other countries, including the United Kingdom. The point was made that where people who are civil servants are hearing appeals on decisions taken by their senior fellows, there may be very high levels of integrity but there is at least the perception of a lack of independence. What is needed with an appeals board is guaranteed independence and the perception of that independence.

There were a number of practical suggestions in the report. As some of these claimants, or appellants, do not have the highest levels of social skills or educational attainment they, as indeed many of us, and I include myself in that, are easily intimidated by the need to fill in forms, which can be a little bewildering. The point was made that as in some other countries, it might be possible to examine the situation where the initial claim could be registered either electronically or by telephone to make it as consumer friendly as possible.

The research groups indicated that officials of the Department went out of their way to be courteous and co-operative and to give as much information as they could, without which this report could not have been compiled. It is important to put that on the record in case it is perceived I am criticising for the sake of criticising but they did make the point that figures are not always available in areas where they would be useful. I will give one example of that. Many of the claimants or appellants felt that they would have had a much better chance if they had been legally represented. There are no figures available on this and I urge the Minister to continue to co-operate with these research groups because there will be further research programmes to ascertain these figures and to make them available. A clear view would then emerge from these figures because although we do not have figures within this jurisdiction, we do have them from the neighbouring jurisdiction, the United Kingdom, and in particular from the North. The figures in the North show very clearly that the success rate of appellants under their appeal system is actually doubled where they have legal representation. That suggests to me that there may be a significant number of people who have their appeals disallowed, not because of the invalidity of their claim but because of the lack of expertise or polish with which that claim is presented; that could be looked at if they had legal representation.

I understand that the situation in law is that there is no absolute statutory requirement that legal aid be given but, on the other hand, opinion has been sought and has stated that whereas this is not mandatory, at the same time if it was decided to refuse or to deny legal aid, a court might regard that as being ultra vires and it might then hold that the appellant was entitled to legal representation. In terms of fairness, decency and justice, when a situation arises where it seems obvious from figures from the other part of the island albeit in the absence of our own, it seems clear that legal representation does lead to success.

Decisions should be published. I see the Acting Chairman leaning forward. How much time do I have remaining?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis)

The Senator has half a minute——

Mr. Norris

I am sure it will be an expanded half minute.

Acting Chairman

——or 30 seconds if the Senator prefers.

Mr. Norris

I would like another minute and 30 seconds. I hope the Minister has received a copy of this report and that he will read it. It contains many graphs and so on, which I do not particularly like, but there is also the human face. There are six case histories in the report. One, for example, concerns a woman who applied for a one-parent family payment. She was denied on the grounds that she had made insufficient attempts to get maintenance. She did not know what that phrase meant. She felt she had done everything she could. It turned out that they wanted her to get a court order for maintenance but she did not want to do that for the very human and understandable reason that her husband was violent. He was still in the home and she was afraid that if she applied for a court order she would be whacked again. It is not right that she should be forced to do something that would jeopardise her well-being.

Problems sometimes arise as a result of a conflict between the claimant's own medical opinion and the opinion of the medical assessor. In one case, a woman turned up three times for a medical assessment. The first time the medical assessor did not turn up. The second time he turned up but he did not have the necessary equipment to measure her disability. The third time he gave her a cursory examination. That is not appropriate.

I ask the Acting Chairman to allow me to mention the final case. I raised a similar case some years ago in the Seanad successfully and the Minister at the time was compassionate. It is about the way in which one entitlement is subtracted from another so that people get the minimum payment. The case concerns disability allowance.

Acting Chairman

The Senator has taken a flexible approach to 30 seconds.

Mr. Norris

I am just finishing. This woman was claiming disability allowance. She then took up a FÁS course and was denied the disability allowance. She was also a lone parent. Had she claimed the lone parents allowance, which she did not, she could have kept that payment and taken up the FÁS course. It seems daft to me that because she did not claim the right one she was denied a payment the Department had been paying.

Acting Chairman

The Senator must conclude.

Mr. Norris

It looked for a repayment of €3,000 and took away the payment, which I am glad to say was restored on appeal. I raised the issue of a blind student.

Acting Chairman

Senator, 30 seconds is not 2 minutes.

Mr. Norris

I am only on 25. The blind student got a scholarship to do a PhD in history. By way of reward they subtracted the value of the scholarship from the blind allowance. That is mean and penny pinching. Somebody with a disability who has the gumption to do something for themselves should be encouraged and supported, not penalised.

Mr. Kitt

I welcome the Minister and support the amendment. I do not know any Minister for social welfare who has done as much work and spoken as much on pensions as Deputy Brennan. As the Minister has pointed out, we have a serious problem. Of the 2 million people in the workforce 900,000 have no private or work pension and a high proportion of those are women. I would like the Government to do more on the issue of pensioners' spouses. When one refers to the qualified adult portion of a pension it generally refers to situations where the payments are split among family members due to disharmony. Although the Department of Social and Family Affairs is good at doing that there should be an administrative and legal basis for the direct payment of those payments rather than the Department having to intervene.

Senator Cox proposed the amendment on the question of social inclusion and the social insurance system. I asked farmers in 1998 why they would not join that sort of scheme. There was strong resistance against it at the time, but people later regretted that they had not taken the opportunity. We have resolved that issue for self-employed people.

It may not be fair to blame the issue of local authority members on the Minister. I find it hard to understand. I was in a local authority for 17 years and received a gratuity, but I was also a Member of the Oireachtas. Councillors who have been with a local authority for 20 years wonder why they cannot get a social welfare payment — like local authority staff — when they leave or lose their council seats. The Seanad has been supportive of those councillors but the Dáil and the Ministers who have spoken on the matter have not. Whether it is the responsibility of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government we must address this issue. Whether one is a county councillor or a local authority staff member, one makes a contribution to the people and that should be recognised. I hope the Minister can examine this issue.

I welcome what has been said about child benefit, which has increased four-fold in the last ten years. I saw a debate on "Prime Time" last night about the child care package in the forthcoming budget. Expectations are high. I support what has been said on giving parents choice on child care and I reject any suggestion that there may be no increase in child benefit. Child benefit has done much good and while other ways may be examined it must be maintained.

Senator Norris pointed out that the Department sometimes gives support with one scheme and takes it away with another. I have spoken previously to the Minister on this. We have improved the farm assist to small farmers. This has not been referred to recently. I was glad to see the carers' allowance improved in the last budget but I have seen a farm assist recipient who applied for the carers' allowance losing out. Although the Department gives a person in this situation the better option, it is amazing to see it happening.

The issue of lone parents must be examined and I hope the Minister will do his best. When a recipient of the lone parents' payment enters part-time employment, it is ludicrous that he or she loses the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance, as happened in August and September this year. This should not happen. When the community employment scheme began approximately 15 years ago a person with a medical card who joined a FÁS scheme was allowed to keep his or her medical card. This must be addressed seriously.

Some of these many issues are not exactly the Minister's responsibility but they affect the elderly. We are going to talk about the elderly and qualified adult pensions. Other Senators spoke on the central repairs grants and housing repairs for the elderly. The Minister should look at this situation, or one Minister should examine all the schemes for the elderly. The funding must be provided for all those schemes. I hope the fuel allowance for the elderly will be increased in the budget as energy cost have increased. Many pensioners have mentioned that those living alone have increasing expenses and people on those pensions should be supported.

The respite grant is one of the best grants I have seen recently. It benefits 30,000 carers. Many people do not realise that it is paid irrespective of whether a person receives carer's allowance; that is unique. No other country has a system like it. I hope it will continue and the benefits will be increased. The Minister is committed to increasing the pension to €200 by 2007. The Minister is working towards that and hopefully the next budget will include another step.

Social welfare schemes should try to improve situations and not, as Senator Norris said, give with one hand and take with the other. It is not intentional but it happens and the means tests are the problem. Although the income disregard has been increased in every budget, I would like the means test to be abolished for some of those schemes, in particular the carers' allowance.

Mr. Bradford

I welcome the Minister and I thank Senator Terry for placing this motion before us. It is traditional that the Opposition place a motion, the Government tables an amendment and we have a political debate. That is part of the political discourse, but social welfare and policy is important. Regardless of the results of the inevitable vote, I hope the Minister will take on board the statements by both sides of the House. During the last Cabinet reshuffle it appeared that the Minister was unwilling to move to this Department.

Mr. O’Toole

That was a media comment.

Mr. Bradford

The Minister has done a fine job. His is one of the major positions within Cabinet and a role of great importance to every family. Almost everybody must liaise with the Department of Social and Family Affairs at some stage. Those issues that come under the aegis of the Minister are ones that require ongoing investigation, debate and dialogue. I am aware he is committed to change within the Department, some of which has already happened. To make use of Fianna Fáil's election phrase, there is a lot done and a lot more to do. I hope this work will continue. The issues outlined in the motion and articulated by Senator Terry must be taken on board.

The budget for which the Minister has responsibility is enormous, comprising a sum of money on which the entire State was run some years ago. This budget encompasses a great number of schemes in respect of which there are significant anomalies that cause difficulties for many people. This issue was raised by Senators Norris and Kitt and is worthy of ongoing debate. It is a feature of our unusual political system that all Members must keep in regular contact with constituents. Every day, each of us speak to people who have queries in regard to the various social welfare schemes. It is important that we try to address the anomalies that exist. The Minister is working in this direction but there is a long way to go.

Other Members raised the issue of pensions, both contributory and non-contributory, and the question of PRSI contributions. Recent remarks from the Minister indicate this area is to the fore in his policy considerations. The next Taoiseach and Government, no matter the make-up, must give consideration to the creation of a Department of pensions, as is the case in many European states. An administrative weakness of this State is that we have more or less the same Departments that were in place 60 or 70 years ago.

Social welfare in its broadest sense is a major challenge and new challenges are emerging in this area. Within the ambit of social welfare, the issue of pensions is, as the Minister and other Members have said, a time bomb waiting to go off. In the course of the next five to ten years, we must demonstrate our serious intent in this regard by establishing a dedicated Department charged with the responsibility of tackling the pension issue. This is something the next Administration must take on board.

The child benefit payment, one of the traditional means of helping families, has been a great success. One can present all types of ideological arguments as to different ways of approaching it but, ultimately, we should not attempt to fix what is not broken. Child benefit is an effective measure. All we ask is that the Minister should continue to ensure there are realistic and meaningful increases. Child benefit has a role to play in our collective endeavours to devise an effective solution in regard to child care, which is akin to a large jigsaw encompassing different problems and requiring various solutions. Child benefit has an important function in this regard. I hope next month's Budget Statement by the Minister for Finance will include significant increases in this allowance. Such increases are necessary not only in the context of child care provision but also in terms of the broader good of society.

The farm assist scheme to which Senator Kitt referred is a useful provision. From my knowledge of the farming community and the queries I receive, however, it seems many of those entitled to this benefit do not claim it. There is a responsibility on us to ensure, through increased advertising and other means, that all those in rural areas entitled to partake in this scheme will benefit from the meaningful assistance it provides to low-income families. In addition, the Department of Agriculture and Food has introduced a social scheme in rural areas which allows people to work with their communities and receive a social assistance payment. This also has a role to play in keeping rural communities alive.

I support what has been said about the carer's allowance. Senator Terry has put forward Private Members' motions on this topic in the past. It is an outstanding scheme for those who receive benefit from it. Unfortunately, however, the means testing requirement ensures the majority of those who provide full-time care for elderly relatives do not receive financial support. With the introduction of last year's respite grant, the Minister moved towards a type of universal payment and recognition of care in the home or community. As a policy statement, we should have no hesitation in offering financial support to any person, poor or slightly richer, who looks after a relative or neighbour on a full-time basis.

The cost to the State of providing for a person to be looked after in his or her home is far less than that involved in placing the person in a community facility, district hospital or private nursing home. For every €250 or €300 the Department pays in carer's allowance, hundreds of euro are saved from the weekly budget of the Department of Health and Children. I appeal strongly to the Minister, who I know is examining this issue, to consider dropping the means test for the carer's allowance. It would transform the way the elderly are looked after and would be worthwhile from both an economic and social perspective.

I support Senator Terry's comments in regard to the extension of PRSI support for those who work in the voluntary sector. Volunteerism has disappeared. An international effort last year to stem the tide, the International Year of the Volunteer, was insufficient. We must show practical support for the volunteer effort. The Minister should, through the various schemes in his Department, try to ensure that those who give voluntary help and support to their communities, to the great benefit of society at large, are given some type of PRSI recognition.

Notwithstanding the political divide that will take place in an hour's time, I hope the Minister will take on board what Senator Terry has said. The issues she has raised point to the practical, necessary components of an effective social structure to underpin our economic growth.

Ms White

I welcome the Minister. Senator Bradford is wrong about the lack of volunteers. Dr. Mary Redmond pointed out to us last year that at least 250,000 people do some voluntary work. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, large numbers of people, from all walks of life and of all ages, engage in voluntary work. They are unsung heroes.

Yesterday morning, the Carers' Association, led by its chief executive officer, Mr. Enda Egan, presented an excellent outline of its pre-budget submission and, in so doing, provided an insight into the massive contribution made by home carers to our health service and society. According to the most recent census results, 150,000 people are family carers, of whom 50,000 work in a full-time capacity providing at least 42 hours of care each week. In many instances, full-time caring involves a commitment 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These 150,000 carers together provide 3 million hours of care each week, saving the State an estimated €1.5 billion annually in comparative health service care. Combined, they provide 90% of community care. They are responsible for caring for some of our most vulnerable citizens. Being a family carer means caring for a child with a disability, an adult with a disability, a terminally ill spouse or child or an older relative.

One in six of the 150,000 carers receive a carer's allowance of €150,000 per week. Compare this with the cost of providing formal residential care, which ranges from between €600 and €1,300 per week. The carer's allowance amounts to just under €8,000 per annum for providing full-time care. These people provide this massive service on behalf of the health service.

Carers are on constant call due to the high levels of social and health care required. Many carers are in poor health as a result of the physical, social and emotional effects of providing long-term, high level care without basic supports. One of the speakers yesterday, Ms Anne Hughes, a single mother, spoke of her full-time care for her 26 year old child who suffers from an intellectual disability. She said that the strain of full-time caring without support left her suffering from depression and insomnia.

In this context, the pre-budget demands of the Carers' Association are far from unreasonable. It listed nine objective areas where it wishes to see progress in the budget. A national strategy for carers should be developed as a priority and should consist of the following important components: comprehensive services and support for family carers; enhancing and supporting carers' health and well-being; an adequate and fair system of remuneration for carers; education and training for carers; and work-life balanced policies that support carers. Full-time carers should be entitled to a medical card and a comprehensive health check each year to ensure their physical, social and mental well-being is protected. After all, they provide 3 million hours of care every week, a substantial contribution to the care of others.

Full-time carers deserve fair remuneration. As part of a national strategy, the allowance should be increased to €190 per week, which is equal to the nursing home subvention grant the Government gives to private nursing homes to care for disabled people. This allowance should ultimately be increased and linked to the levels of pay of the labour market equivalent within three years. A problem for many family carers caused by current social welfare rules is that a person in receipt of widow's or widower's pension, old age pension or lone parents allowance is not entitled to apply for, or to receive, carer's allowance. The social welfare system only allows a person to receive one benefit. The sum of €153 per week or under €8,000 per year for carers must be re-examined.

Finally, I wish to refer to work-life balance. This issue is of great importance and interest for me. As part of my new approach to child care, I propose to introduce a Bill in the Seanad, the flexible working Bill. If I can get the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, and the Cabinet to agree, it will be introduced in the next couple of months.

Mr. O’Toole

He dare not refuse you.

Ms White

We presume the Minister will support the Bill.

Mr. O’Toole

We will support the Senator anyway. The Senator might not be able to support it herself.

Ms White

Senator Ross told me last week that the Independent Senators would look after it for me. He said they would take it over and deal with it. However, I had better be diplomatic. I have a hill to climb.

The flexible working Bill is one of the propositions in my child care document. As happens in the UK, we should have legislation whereby a parent with a child under six years old or a disabled child under 18 should be entitled to negotiate special flexible working arrangements with their employer. The employer should have a statutory obligation to negotiate. That does not mean the employer must accept the proposition but this is part of 21st century working. With the availability of e-mail, laptop computers, broadband and teleworking, there is no reason that people must be under the same roof from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The flexible working Bill will not only be a contribution to child care but also be helpful for a parent with a disabled child.

Recently, The Irish Times published an article on research that was carried out into flexible working. Despite the fact that Irish management is supportive of the concept of flexible working, only 11% of Irish companies allow it, compared with 55% of European companies. The research showed that the management of Irish companies is more inclined to utilise flexible working itself rather than allow the staff to do so. Even though a new document published yesterday by IBEC and ICTU promotes the concept of work-life balance and flexible working, I intend to go further and introduce a Bill in the Seanad to enshrine it in legislation. I hope the Members will support me in that.

Mr. O’Toole

I look forward to supporting Senator White's Bill and I am sure my Independent colleagues will be the first to cross the floor to support her. I only hope the Senator will be allowed to support it herself.

Ms White

If I am not allowed, I will give it to the Senator.

Mr. O’Toole

The problem with joining a party is that one must follow the flag and the party might not like the Bill.

Ms Terry

The Senator will have to come over here.

Ms White

If it does not, I will give the Bill to the Senator.

Mr. O’Toole

No. I would be in trouble with ICTU and IBEC if I went further than they did.

Ms White

The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, is 100% supportive.

Mr. O’Toole

As this might be the last opportunity to address the Minister before the budget, I wish to mention a related matter, pensions.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator sharing time?

Mr. O’Toole

Yes. I wish to share time with Senator Henry.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O’Toole

I have said on many previous occasions that I will support the Minister's suggestion in that regard, although I suspect he is not getting enough support for it. I believe in the concept that a year's work should have a year's pension contribution or entitlement attached to it. Even if that requires legislation which people from my side of the labour spectrum or people on the other side do not like, it would be the most important decision on pensions in the history of the State. It is crucial.

There is much talk about the European exposure or liability with regard to pensions. As bad as it is here, we are much better off than countries such as Italy and Germany. However, that is no reason to rest on our laurels. The Minister should push forward with his proposal. I hope there will be a move towards that objective in the next budget. IBEC is correct that it will impose costs on employers. The organisation will have to deal with that. Some of the unions will oppose it because they do not want their members paying into it. We should take them all on about this. As a union member and general secretary I have tried to push that concept, unsuccessfully, on many occasions. I still believe in it. It would be a revolutionary change and I compliment the Minister on raising it. I would be delighted to support it wherever the Minister can do it, even if we can only move forward step by step.

I strongly support Senator Bradford's comment that this is not really a party political issue. It always upsets me that social welfare issues become caught in party crossfire. There is a broad consensus on social welfare but there are issues that must be addressed. The carers' issue, which has been mentioned by all speakers in this debate, is hugely important. Everybody supports carers.

I wish to link this to the broader societal shifts that have occurred. The major societal shift is in the structure of our communities. We now have nuclear families and units. When I was a child, if somebody on the street had a serious illness or a family had suddenly fallen into bad times or had some difficulty with a son or daughter in America or in the UK, everybody on the street knew about it and there was a support structure.

If someone was not working for a week due to an aspect of his or her job, some level of support came through at the local shop and various other places. In many areas, these societal and community structures are gone. In towns and cities, particularly Dublin, one could be living next door to a family trying to cope with an extraordinary problem, such as separation, a bereavement, a child with a difficulty or a problem in the extended family, without knowing and with no supports available as a result. This is an additional reason as to why the carers' issue is important.

This motion has to do with the redistribution of society's wealth. The Minister's job in Cabinet is to fight for a fairer redistribution. If benchmarks are to be placed on our society and democracy, one must be how well the disadvantaged, not necessarily economic, and those with dependencies are cared for. I hope that gives grist to the mill, strength to the Minster's elbow. No one must apologise for the Minister for Social and Family Affairs demanding a greater share of the wealth cake when it is redistributed. On the other hand, the Minister and his departmental Accounting Officer have a duty to ensure that money is not wasted. This debate must be about how best can we direct and focus social welfare spending.

The contradictory issues in this debate, such as a lone parent losing certain allowances, gives out the wrong message when we want to have an energetic and buoyant economic community. We must support people who have what is termed a "get up and go" attitude. Similarly people with disabilities, such as the example given by Senator Norris, must not lose out because they take on extra responsibilities and improve themselves. I hope the Minister shares this view.

All dependants, whether they are unemployed, for whatever reason, aged, which we are all facing if we live long enough, people coping with disabilities or their extended family supporting someone coping with a disability, need to have their share. I support the point made by Senator Bradford on the social capital of volunteers. As a large number is involved in voluntary caring, it is important that they are in a structured process, entitling them to build up contribution records through stamps or other appropriate methods. I ask the Minister to bring forward such a system in the forthcoming budget.

Dr. Henry

I thank Senator O'Toole for sharing his time. The Minister knows in his own heart that those who are so disabled that they need personal assistance have the greatest difficulty in getting care. To date, we have relied on community employment schemes to provide personal assistants for this group. They have been doing a very good job. However, as soon as they are trained to be useful to the person to whom they are assigned, they are frequently at the end of the scheme and must be moved on. This area must be mainstreamed. Core funding must be introduced so that those who have been trained as personal care assistants can continue to be employed in 19 hours a week care. They help to give those they care for lives outside of homes, independence and the chance to socialise. Introducing such funding in the budget would do a tremendous service, not just to them, but to the community itself. All Members want to see people who are not able to partake in society have that opportunity to become integrated into it.

The first time I went to Russia, I never saw anyone in a wheelchair. This was not because there was no one in Russia in a wheelchair but because no facilities or thought were given to ensuring wheelchair-users could become involved in social life. No matter what my complaints may have been about American society, one always saw people with disabilities getting a chance to become involved in society. I would be most grateful if the Minister could ensure these paid carers, at €12 an hour, are considered to be professionals in their jobs and allowed to continue in the positions they have been placed.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. S. Brennan)

I thank Senator Terry and those on the Opposition side of the House for putting down this motion. Members are correct that it is good to discuss these issues before the budget. That is why I listened carefully, taking detailed notes of those practical suggestions on which I can move. I agree with most of them, quibble with others, but by and large support their direction. I thank both sides of the House for their contributions which will not be lost as I have listened carefully to what has been said. I can put these alongside what I have heard in the Dáil, from the various associations and from my officials and experts.

This is an important debate, the timing of which could not be better. Hour by hour we are working on these issues in preparation for the forthcoming budget and the social welfare and pensions Bills. Many issues were raised on how the social welfare system works for women. Senator Terry quoted me as saying the system was unfair. I do not believe I meant to say that for the whole system. However, I believe the social welfare system is not fair to women. It has gone some distance with some improvements but in matters such as pensions, including those for former civil servants, child care, qualified adult status, men have done far better from the system than women. I am determined to reverse this situation in my time in office. The first step is to acknowledge it and then resolve it.

My top priorities are to make progress on combating child poverty and the reforms of allowances for lone parents. I believe the social policies in the latter area are not progressive. I have proposals, particularly concerning cohabitation and the encouragement to work which I will introduce presently. I have a passionate belief that everyone must have a decent pension.

Mr. O’Toole

Hear, hear.

Mr. S. Brennan

What pulling and dragging we must do between us to provide this is part of political business. As long as I have the honour to hold this ministerial post, I will fight tooth and nail to ensure everyone has a decent pension. It may not be a "one-size-fits-all" answer. We must examine both the non-contributory and contributory pensions.

We must also do more in that area, particularly on the issue of disregards. A non-contributory pensioner is allowed to earn €7 or €8 per week but anything above that starts to eat into the pension. I will return to that area at another time.

Next week I will launch the report from the Pensions Board which I have now received. I will put it up for debate for a short period before we bring proposals forward for action in this area. The Pensions Board has grappled with several issues and the answers are not simple. Perhaps, as Senator O'Toole suggested, we should sweep aside all the complexities and deal with it in a simple but courageous way. Those are words politicians often must eat afterwards.

Mr. O’Toole

Like the famous line in "Yes Minister".

Mr. Brennan

I acknowledge the points made about the role of women in the welfare system, the requirement to reform the pension system, the lone parent system and particularly child poverty. I also acknowledge the work of carers. We introduced a €1,000 respite grant to help make the jobs of carers easier and enable them to become more professionally involved, on which I have had a number of meetings with the Carers' Association. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and I recently met with the association and discussed many of these issues. I support the association's determination to have a national carers' strategy and promise to work with it on this.

I also acknowledge Senator Bradford's point that when there are 53 or 54 different schemes there are bound to be anomalies. Similarly when one spends €12.5 billion. Senator Bannon pointed out, as did other Senators such as Senator Norris, that if people move from one scheme to another they can lose out. They might have not enough stamps for one or the thresholds may be different for another. It can be a nightmare to negotiate one's way through. My responsibility is to remove those anomalies. We removed some last year and we will remove more in the period ahead. If suggestions made here today can be carried out we will do so but when there are rules people fall either side of them.

The system is there for the individual, not vice versa. It must be tailored to the needs of individuals because individuals do not think departmentally. They have needs, whether they be in the field of health, education or welfare and we must design our systems so that they can be tailored to meet the needs of the individual at the time, rather than a one size fits all hand down, whereby if people do not fit a particular size and shape of scheme they do not qualify. Clarity is important on the way forward.

On the motion itself, Irish society was based on the traditional family unit, which gave rise to the marriage bar. The bar was removed in 1973 but structures remained whereby women were largely dependent on their husbands from a financial point of view. This has had an effect on the number of women who qualify for pensions in their own right and successive Governments have sought to introduce greater flexibility in that area. In 2000 a special half-rate pension was introduced.

I will clarify entitlements under the homemakers' scheme. The scheme allows up to 20 years spent on caring duties to be disregarded when a person's insurance record is being averaged to assess entitlement for contributory pension purposes. This set of measures is of particular benefit to women who may have less than complete social insurance records due to working in the home. At present, approximately 87% of women over 65 years of age resident in Ireland receive social welfare support, either in their own right or as qualified adults. With improved social insurance coverage, easing of qualifying conditions and improved workforce participation more people, particularly women, will qualify for contributory payments in the future. Despite these improvements, there are some people who cannot qualify for a pension in their own right. In the motion Senator Terry has drawn attention to a number of those.

Qualified adult allowance rates are now 66% of the main rate and there is a commitment to raise it to 70%. Senator Terry's motion calls for it to be paid directly and brought up to the level of the contributory pension. She pointed out that it is in our programme for Government. I have costed it and it is extremely expensive but I support the idea of paying the qualified adult allowance directly to the person involved, which is usually the woman. It is possible to do that and 7% of new pension claimants have opted for the arrangement. The fact that it is not widely taken up suggests two conclusions. Either there is no demand for it or there is a demand but, given the nature of Irish society, that demand is not effective. I incline to the latter. There are a number of difficult issues to be resolved in deciding that it will not be paid to the man but in a separate cheque to the woman. However, I am attracted to the idea and will try to make progress.

A number of other issues were raised and with permission I will not go into them all in this debate. The script I have circulated deals with many of the issues raised in the motion. Perhaps the Senators would agree to take the contents of the script as part of my response. I wanted to make general personal comments and the script deals with the details of many of the issues which have arisen.

Mr. Cummins

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for his comments. The issue of carers in the home was referred to earlier. I worked with the Carers' Association for over 12 months and I am aware of the work that spouses, children and others in the home carry out. It is work that needs every assistance from Government, including regular respite care. Home help workers and home carers from the health boards from another part of the community who do not get the credit they deserve. They do tremendous work in helping families cope with family members that are infirm, elderly or unable to care for themselves. We should do everything we can to help these people. We have an increasingly elderly population and that trend will continue in coming years so we need to have a policy in place to cater for them in the future.

As well as the voluntary sector, farmers' wives are a group not covered by PRSI contributions. They work in the home and on the farm but are not entitled to a pension in their own right. It is necessary to work outside the home to get stamps or pay PRSI to qualify for a pension. The Minister said he hoped everybody in the country would be entitled to a pension.

Another group not covered by PRSI are councillors. Councillors throughout the country are paid a representational allowance, which is taxed, but they are not allowed pay PRSI. This is discrimination, as many of these people work full-time as public representatives but are treated differently than any other section of the community, or any section within the public service. This should not be tolerated, and councillors should be allowed or be required to pay PRSI contributions. This would put them into the social welfare system.

It is a matter of principle, justice and equity that these people be included in the social welfare system. They give many hours working to represent their communities throughout the country. Although they receive a representational allowance, they never qualify for a pension. It is within the aegis of the Minister's Department, as well as that of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that due consideration be given to this issue. People who have served 20 or 30 years on local authorities will only receive an allowance or some benefit from the years after representational allowances came into being. People who spent 20 years on a council prior to 2000, for example, are not entitled to any benefit for the service. If this happened in any other section of the public service it would not be tolerated. In view of this I ask the Minister to investigate the issue of pensions and PRSI payments for local authority members.

Mr. B. Hayes

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cummins

The issue of home care packages has been mentioned on several occasions. We must beef up this entire area, as the amount of work carried out by people coming into homes to help families is rewarded by a pittance. These people are very important to families throughout the country. In his speech the Minister covered many areas relating to dependent allowances. The issue of caring in particular is one where enough funding cannot be given, as the people working in the area deserve every bit they get.

Mr. Moylan

I welcome the Minister to the House. The Minister's speech and key points were well constructed. He has covered all the salient points and difficulties that are being experienced. Many of the speakers have also made very important points and the Minister has recognised the importance of listening when making pre-budget decisions. He is working very hard at the moment.

We must recognise the improvements that the Minister has introduced to the social welfare system during his term, as well as improvements that have taken place during the Government's term. Many people have welcomed improvements in child benefit and old-age pensions. As prices increase, people will always want more no matter what they receive. That is human nature. However, we should recognise what has been done to date. Senator Bannon mentioned housing aid, disabled persons' grants, etc., and large amounts of money have been placed in and spent on these schemes. Significant developments have also taken place.

Senators Kitt and Cummins mentioned representational allowance. My opinion as a Senator elected by those councillors, and as a councillor who spent 27 years on a local authority before walking away without benefit or pension help, is that the matter should be examined. Perhaps the issue cannot be investigated immediately, but we should ensure that those people serving the public in a voluntary capacity — although they receive a representational allowance which is taxed — are included in future in some form of pension scheme.

I wish to discuss difficulties that arise in social welfare payments and appeals officers. Appeals are taking far too long and action must be taken in respect of people who are for some reason cut off. As it can take so long for an appeal to be made, these people are put under extreme strain. Often forms that are received from the Department are difficult to complete, and people may get a public representative to do it or go to their solicitor. This was commented on earlier. The issue should be examined and the process streamlined. Social welfare officers should make themselves available to assist these people in filling out such forms.

There is an anomaly in farm retirement pensions, which a number of farmers signed up to. I blame some of the farm bodies which advised farmers to take up these pension schemes, which were not index linked. The farmers affected are serious losers, although they took their decision to enable their offspring or younger well-qualified people to take over the farms. These people were left with a pension that was not index linked and has been of little value to them over the years. The farm assist scheme was commented on and more publicity is required, as it is an excellent scheme which is working very well. A number of farmers have not signed on to it for some reason, and more help must be offered.

Although the system of people with disabilities and personal assistants has been working, there is a time limit in which people who qualified through FÁS, for example, work as personal assistants for particular people. This should be examined and the time limit extended, as when people with serious disabilities are helped by such assistants a professional approach is built between them. They must be afforded the opportunity of continuing. I am aware of instances where a disabled person's assistant must finish and somebody else must come in to be trained. The time limits must be extended.

I wish to discuss people with disabilities purchasing specialised adapted vehicles. An anomaly exists within the relevant programmes, as people can qualify if they lose a leg, for example, but not if an arm is lost. Action must be taken on this issue. More seriously disabled people should qualify for these schemes, as it would make a major difference to their livelihoods.

The Minister indicated that the social programme must be about empowering, liberating, actively creating opportunity, tackling the causes of poverty and bringing people from welfare dependency to welfare independence. He has summed the issue up well in that comment.

Ms Terry

I thank the Minister for staying for the entire debate and for his presentation. I also thank the Senators who contributed to this worthwhile debate. While I recognise that many Senators concentrated on particular areas that were of more concern to them than others, sharing our views is still valuable.

I welcome the Minister's statement that he is examining how to make the payments directly to the qualifying adults and would be happy were he to find a mechanism to do so. We must ensure that the adults in question, usually women, have economic independence. We must get away from the type of dependency on the bread winners, usually men. I would welcome any improvements the Minister could make in this area.

Concerning the homemakers' scheme, I recognise that it is worthwhile in its current form but it will not come into effect or cost the Government anything for many years. Will this scheme be made retrospective to 1973 in order to recognise and acknowledge the work that has been done by the hundreds of thousands of women who, in many cases, were forced to stay at home and those who chose to stay at home and rear their children? We should make it retrospective and the Minister should examine the matter again.

I look forward to the report that will be published by the Pensions Board next week. When Senators spoke about pensions, they were obviously speaking about the social welfare pension, the old age contributory or non-contributory pension. Of course, there are other pensions, namely, occupational pensions, in which the Minister knows I have a great interest. The social welfare pension is in a complete mess and I would welcome any suggestion by the Minister to scrap the occupational pension schemes and place money in the social welfare pensions instead. The Minister knows there are many people who have paid into occupational pension schemes for all of their working lives but are today dependent on their old age contributory pensions, which comprise the greatest portions of their overall pensions.

The social welfare pension works very well. While it provides a pension I would like to see it increased as it remains low compared to other countries. The occupational schemes incur significant costs on the State, particularly in respect of tax exemptions. If money were redirected from tax exemptions and put into social welfare pensions we could create a better pension for every worker in this country than is the case. I hope the Minister is examining such a suggestion. I believe it is how he would like to deal with the issue but it will be difficult and the amount of work large.

I also hope the Minister will examine the suggestions I have made and the pre-budget submissions he has received from the many organisations that wish to rid this country of poverty, particularly among women and children. There are many good suggestions that should be implemented and I hope the Minister will see his way to doing so in the forthcoming budget.