Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)

It may sound strange coming from this side of the House but I also welcome this Bill. All the increases provided for in the Bill are very much appreciated. While money is important, we must remember it is not the only issue connected with poverty. The one measure I would like to see is more communication and interaction between different Departments in this regard. For example, the lack of a medical card for a pensioner with a small amount of additional income can often leave him or her in poverty. If the person's pension and any additional income is assessed, he or she will not receive a medical card and will be forced to pay for his or her medical care, which can have serious implications. This issue must be examined very carefully.

While there have been announcements in respect of medical cards, which are not relevant to the debate on this Bill, the answer to a parliamentary question I tabled last week revealed that of the 200,000 doctor-only medical cards promised, only 5,000 have been issued. Major questions must be answered about how we treat those on low incomes. A total of 100,000 medical cards were taken away, 10,000 of which were in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, although it has a much lower income rate per person than Cork, where only 8,000 medical cards were taken back. I appreciate the individual work carried out by the Minister but cross-compliance is clearly needed to ensure we minimise the difficulties experienced by people, particularly elderly people. I am referring specifically to widows, widowers and people between the ages of 66 and 70 since people over 70 automatically receive medical cards. The Minister rightly pointed out in his opening speech that payments alone will not solve our social problems.

He also mentioned lone parents who are caring for 130,000 children and wish to escape welfare traps and start out on a path to training, education and work. A report on literacy published last week reveals that we have a significant problem with young people leaving school with inadequate literacy levels at a time when there is unprecedented finance in the country. These young people are far less likely to secure proper employment and avoid the poverty trap.

I welcome the change relating to people receiving the non-contributory pension, a point I will revisit as it is particularly important. Allowing people to earn €100 per week and still receive the full pension is a very valuable change.

The issue of cross-compliance was starkly highlighted at a meeting I attended last Friday night. A colleague from Cavan County Council raised the case of a pensioner living in a nursing home in County Monaghan who was forced to hire taxis to travel to hospital. She was forced to take two taxis to Dublin, one taxi to Cavan and one taxi to undergo a blood test at Monaghan Hospital, which was only one mile up the road. Her total taxi bill was €552.50, of which €160 was spent on each of the taxi journeys to Dublin. On two separate occasions, she was forced to pay €75 and €60 in waiting penalties. Her journey to Cavan cost her €60, as well as €25 in a waiting penalty. She was forced to borrow the money for these taxi journeys from her local credit union in a town in my area. The taxi driver knew that a person of her age would be honourable and pay but this is how she was forced to raise the money for her journeys. She must now pay back this money out of her weekly pension.

We must examine such cases very carefully and ensure that they do not happen to someone who does not have a family to look after his or her needs. Information must be available to ensure someone like this is dealt with in a caring and realistic way. The local Health Service Executive area maintains that it has no budget for taxi services but in an area like this where there is a lack of hospital services, such an issue must be dealt with very sympathetically. We can give out all the money we like in flat-rate payments but they do not cover this type of expense.

The amount of money a person has in a bank or building society account while still receiving the maximum rate of pension for a single person has increased to €35,000, which is a welcome development. The amount has increased to €70,000 for a couple. This change is possibly related to the SSIA scheme. I remember an occasion when Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and myself spoke in this House to try to bring about some change in this area. The former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, told us we were only interested in looking after millionaires. We have come a long way, which I appreciate. It is important that people keep this money in a savings account. It gives them a sense of security because they know they will not have to depend on a son, daughter or someone else to help them out if they encounter a problem.

We dealt with another matter at the time which the Bill does not resolve. It relates to pensions for the self-employed and people who had less than ten years contributions in 1988 when the self-employed levies were introduced. Given the age limit, some of these people were not able to pay ten years' contributions. Some of them paid nine years, some paid eight years and some paid five years' contributions. The resolution was that anyone who paid five years' contributions, or more, got a half rate pension but they did not get it pro rata for the remaining years. If someone who paid ten years' contributions was a few days too old, they were barred from getting a full rate pension. Later the half rate pension was included. I ask the Minister to examine this because the numbers of people involved are not great. These people who feel very let down will feel even more let down today when they see people who never paid a penny benefiting from the €100. I ask the Minister to try to rectify the situation. If one has paid six years' contributions, he or she should get six-tenths of the pension and if they have nine or ten years' contributions he or she should get nine-tenths of the pension.

The special earnings disregard of €100 a week will benefit approximately 3,000 recipients. I would like to refer to a specific group of people, namely, small farmers. Like our illustrious Ceann Comhairle, I come from Cavan-Monaghan, a constituency which includes very small farmers, many of whom do not have successors. These people may have a few acres of land on which they want to live for the rest of their lives, which may often be rented or leased. Some are involved in private deals and others are not. If they have a few cattle on the land, they will get the full pension, but if the land is leased or rented, it is considered to be unearned income. Will this money be treated in the same way as the €100 earning?

I want to emphasise why this issue is extremely important. We are in a completely new situation as a result of the nitrates directive to which all farmers must adhere. If a young farmer wants to benefit from his neighbour's land, he must go through the legal process. In other words, if a retired farmer is receiving a pension of, say, €5,000 a year, the money should be regarded as earned income, just as if he was in a job, because it is the same thing. I would like this matter clarified, because in the new nitrates directive era, it is extremely important for a farmer to be able to disclose any legitimate dealings to his neighbour.

On the medical card issue, will the €100 be a disadvantage to those who are 66 years of age or widowers? I welcome the increase in the respite grant from €1,000 to €1,200. Some 30,000 people were granted this money last year. There was a provision in the budget to provide the respite grant to 9,000 people who did not have carers, but who were being looked after. As far as I know, fewer than 7,000 people benefited from that grant, despite the fact that carers' bodies and so on say that some 150,000 people are caring for the elderly. Could this provision be promoted better through the different organisations to ensure that as many people as possible can avail of this respite grant?

I welcome the changes in carer's leave. As a member of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs for a number of years, I am aware that much work has gone into this aspect on a cross-party basis to see how we can best serve the elderly and their carers. The Minister's colleagues will verify that we put enormous work into the whole area of carers. The one area that is still not recognised is the role of widows or widowers. It is good that old age pensioners are able to earn €100, but the situation has still not been rectified. The committee proposed unanimously that at least a 50% carer's allowance should be paid to a widow or widower who is caring for either their own parent or the parent of a deceased spouse. These people are told they cannot receive two pensions. Given that a non-contributory old age pensioner or widow can earn €100 a week, can the same not apply to widows or widowers who are caring for people in care? We have broken the bind whereby people are allowed to earn this money. If a widow or widower works somewhere else they are allowed to receive a non-contributory pension, but they are not allowed to do so if they are caring for someone who is handicapped or aged. It appears a widow or widower can earn €100 caring for a neighbour's parent but they will not be allowed to receive even a half rate carer's allowance if they care for their own parent or their spouse's parent. We talk a lot about the need to deal with the issue of care. We want to make sure people are cared for at home so they do not occupy beds in hospitals and so on. However, if we are to be realistic, we must ensure those who care for these people are paid for doing so.

Regarding the renaming of allowances, the Minister said in his speech that it is important to be revolutionary in this regard. However, we must try to change the attitude of some personnel who work in the social welfare service. While I recognise the majority of personnel are extremely helpful, some individuals who deal with inquiries can be less than helpful. People are scared to approach some individuals. Renaming allowances will not be sufficient to deal with this issue. The title "unemployment benefit" is being changed to "job seeker's benefit", "unemployment assistance" is being changed to "job seeker's allowance" and "unemployability supplement" is being changed to "incapacity supplement". While some people are literally unemployable, they may not be classified as suffering from a disability. I met someone recently who had an alcoholism problem. That person needed some payment from time to time to stay alive, but this was not provided. I sat beside the coffin of this 39 year old man a few weeks later. We must treat issues such as this realistically. During my short period there, his father spoke three times about his son's alcoholism. These issues must be recognised by the social welfare system and the health service, and support must be provided. It is an attitudinal problem in many respects.

The changes the Bill introduces are generally welcome and represent improvements. I am from a farming background and make no apology for raising issues relevant to the self-employed and farmers. It seems many people on low incomes are unaware of their entitlement to the supplementary income payment. I blame employers more than employees for this. Media publicity may not be particularly effective because, for example, many of the people concerned may not read newspapers. Pressure must be put on persons employing ten workers or fewer to ensure they advise those workers of their entitlements or even assist them in completing application forms.

My colleague, Deputy Stanton, yesterday observed that people may not be aware of their eligibility for both supplementary income support and a medical card. Obtaining such entitlements can change a person's life completely. Advertisements in the Irish Independent or The Irish Times will not be effective because the people we wish to target may not read them. The Minister must find some other way of informing them of their entitlements.

Will the Minister look again at the issue of supplementary income support? Older people with small shops and other businesses sometimes find it impossible to make ends meet but receive no income support. They must either give up their jobs or struggle on to the last. Many would like to hold on to their small corner shops or other small businesses. Their accounts are accepted by their banks and they are refused loans. The Revenue Commissioners accept that they are not eligible to pay tax. Why does the Department of Social and Family Affairs not accept their accounts and provide them with a supplementary income which takes them up to a standard at which they can survive? With the increasing number of large stores, many owners of small shops and other businesses find it difficult to survive. I urge the Minister to look again at this area and to allow such people to end their days with respect and dignity.

See this speech in context