Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I concur with the previous speaker's remarks on the manner in which the Department of Social and Family Affairs manages its business in a humane and caring fashion. Prior to the Minister blushing with excitement I must state previous Ministers would claim some responsibility for the creation of this beauty which was born a considerable time ago. I wish to give credit to all on this matter. It is a lesson to other Departments whereby contact can be made with people in a position to progress matters. In the bureaucratic and less caring world in which we live it is nice to see personal attention and I compliment the Minister, his staff and their predecessors for it.

The Social Welfare and Pensions Bill is always interesting to discuss. A series of areas could do with examination apart from those covered and anticipated in the context of the Bill. A number of people should and could qualify for what is now known as the State pension by virtue of their contributions to the State over a period of time. I speak of people who are carers and who, through no fault of their own, have never been able to enter employment. People who have left employment are credited with their contributions.

A strong case can be made for those who never had an opportunity to obtain contributions for insurable employment outside the home. They are aggrieved their work is not recognised. People may have spent 20 or 25 years caring for a relative, perhaps in a serious case involving special needs or disability, giving of their full time and attention. They should be recognised and given credit through providing them with a minimum pension and minimum credits. They have saved the State major amounts of money as they care for somebody at home, thereby providing a service which would otherwise have to be provided by the State. In many of these cases they receive no recognition or income. When the person being cared for passes on, they receive nothing, which is the sad part. I would like the Minister to examine this issue. There are many who would benefit from a change and it would not cost the Exchequer a huge amount. One of my last proposals in the Department related to pensions. I was correct in my assessment that it would not have cost the Exchequer a great deal of money when everyone else claimed it would.

The means tests for benefits are beginning to pinch again. It is a sign of the times with the various economic twinges being experienced. The means test as a cut-off point for qualification for certain payments needs to be examined with a view to easing and improving it. The Minister is aware I tabled numerous parliamentary questions on the subject. It needs to be examined regularly, particularly in times of food inflation. The cost of food has gone up, a contradiction of what we were told would happen when the minimum prices order was abolished. Some of us knew this at the time but that is the way it is. The Minister must review the means test.

The respite care grants scheme is an excellent one, whereby recognition is given to the carer and the person being cared for in many cases. There is some small financial recompense and recognition given for the hours, days and months of caring and a break in the tedium is allowed. I am always one to bow to professionals but I also like to know I can question them. In several cases relating to qualifying for the respite grant I did not believe decisions had been made in accordance with what I remembered to be the rules, by which I mean the announcement by the Minister in the House of a scheme and the application of the rules thereafter.

In a particular case I encountered, a person was caring for two others. I found it difficult to understand how one could have scrubbed out a person caring for two people as being ineligible for a respite grant. It could have been argued that one or both of the persons being cared for was not 100% incapacitated but that should not have meant the person concerned would be disqualified from receiving the grant; in fact the reverse can often be the case. I reject the notion that in such cases a person should not qualify for at least one grant. I will be pursuing this issue until such time it is decided to review it. It is a sensitive issue. I am sure, as lightening does not strike once, there have been similar cases.

Bilateral social welfare agreements have caused me as a public representative much frustration. Our next door neighbours are not the most adept at responding to queries concerning welfare entitlements. There should be no delay whatsoever. Modern technology has improved communications to such an extent that information should be retrievable instantly. If one has a particularly sensitive case, one will be told it may be subject to calculations based on Irish and UK social contributions or requires a response from the UK authorities, taking some considerable time. It should not take so much time. The people we need to serve are those in need of the reply. A week may be a short time to some of us. An ill or incapacitated person waiting on a payment sees the cause of the blockage or embargo as a major issue because he or she is vulnerable.

It would be a good approach to examine all social welfare bilateral agreements, to find out how satisfactorily they are working. Those not working efficiently can be dealt with. By virtue of their name, bilateral agreements work in both directions. While there may be language problems with EU countries with which we have arrangements, modern technology can assist in dealing with the matter.

These are the particular issues that most annoy me as a public representative. I am sure the Minister receives the same queries, as do Members on all sides of the House. The means test for carer's allowance is an old chestnut, raised many times before. There are far more people involved in caring for others than the number who receive carer's allowance. That the means test can deprive a carer of a payment does not mean it is saving the State a great deal of money. A person who is not being cared for will have to be institutionalised. It is demeaning to the person providing the care if it transpires he or she does not qualify for the allowance on financial and income grounds. It usually means the husband or wife of the carer is earning outside the household. As a result, the family is deemed capable of providing care at its own expense.

I know the Minister is familiar with this subject but I ask him to review the arrangements. I accept improvements have been made in several recent budgets but it bears examination again. The extent to which carers are relieving the State of responsibility is much greater than the payment that would be made to them. Some may ask how that can be. It is simply because they are nursing on a one-to-one basis, a very difficult task in other circumstances, based in the community, and are available to run messages and care for the person concerned. The need question should not arise in such cases. It is because of the contribution they are making to society that we should consider their plight and recognise their effort.

I accept the Minister must work within budgetary constraints, but there are less deserving cases that receive as much recognition from other Departments. If I were the Minister I would put it high on my agenda, although I am sure he does already. I know also that when budget time approaches there is usually a scramble in the back yard to load up the wagon as it proceeds in the direction of the budget. Some things fall off the wagon altogether, never to be found again. Issues such as these require special consideration simply because the people whom they affect are vulnerable and dependent on people outside their immediate family circles.

These are a few of the things I wanted to say on this subject. I congratulate the Minister on the successes we have had to date but I strongly urge that he consider the points I raised, not necessarily because I raised them but because they are important. There is no Dáil Deputy who has not come across these issues and does not come across them on a regular basis.

See this speech in context