Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Agreed, in the words of a former Member of this House.

The previous speaker commented on the responsiveness of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and its willingness not to avoid questions. It is very seldom that questions are referred back to us as being, allegedly, not the responsibility of the Minister. Effectively, this means the Minister is responsible for everything, so in future we will put down questions to the Minister on every subject. I compliment the Minister and the staff of the Department on the long-established tradition whereby replies to questions are given virtually instantly, within four days. My view has always been that it costs less to answer a question quickly than to answer it over a period of a few months, with three or four letters exchanged in each direction. This is good practice and should be copied by other Departments.

In general, I welcome the positive aspects of the Bill. However, it is a bit like the curate's egg. I can find little bits here and there that could do with improvement. The time has come to reconsider means tests. I know they are updated on a fairly regular basis but the reviews should be carried out more often, at least every six months. The means test should take account of inflation and the income limits should be kept to a realistic level to ensure people are not disadvantaged due to increases in the cost of living and so on.

I have some concerns about the rent support system. The means by which rent supplement is determined leaves a lot to be desired. I have many constituents, as does every Member of the House including the Minister, who is in a much better position than anyone else to do something about it, who are affected by this. In my constituency, rents went up by €200 to €300 per month in the last three months. No account was taken of this in the determination of rent supplement under the current system. The fact that the level of rent allowed for is being rigidly maintained means parents, family or others must support the people paying rent. Alternatively, those using the system tell the supplementary welfare officer that the rent is less than it is and then make up the difference by various means. This is a dangerous route to pursue. People become vulnerable to falling foul of moneylenders or other unscrupulous people who offer them the support needed but at a price. It is this price that causes the problem. It goes up with the passage of time and if the victims fall behind on repayments it rises further. I urge the Minister to consider this as a matter of extreme urgency and investigate whether it is possible to increase the ceiling of eligibility for rent supplement or find a way to make sure that landlords do not take advantage of the system. The rent allowed for should be increased to ensure applicants are treated in a fairer and more equitable fashion than at present because they are coming under pressure.

Various people mentioned carers. This is an area we could spend a whole day talking about and one which needs to be dealt with to a greater extent than has been done by the Minister or his predecessor. We must recognise the problem, which is that carers the length and breadth of the country are providing a service that would otherwise have to be provided in an institution at massively greater cost. In fact, the cost per day would be similar to the cost of caring at home for a month or more.

I hope we will be given the opportunity to return to this debate at a later stage.

See this speech in context