Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome in broad terms his budgetary proposals. In the Budget Statement in the other House last week the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, indicated that in future years he would like to set down some formula whereby, well in advance of the budget, there would be a broad debate across and between the parties on the various options open to Government. If that transpires to be the case it would be a positive move.

In regard to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and its planning for annual changes by way of budgetary increases, it would be helpful if there was a debate at the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs and a debate between the Minister and the various Opposition spokespersons on social and family affairs on the many issues addressed each year in the budget from the point of view of social welfare entitlements. On most of these issues there is no difference of opinion between the parties but there are many anomalies that require to be resolved year in year out and sometimes we do not get around to them. More dialogue between the parties in advance of the Minister's annual statement each year would help resolve some of the issues.

In regard to the Minister's earlier statement and the budget announcements on social welfare, obviously the increases have to be welcomed. We are speaking of social welfare expenditure of almost €14 billion but in the context of the national budgetary situation those who depend on social welfare entitlements and, in particular, the elderly, on whose labours this country was built, deserve every euro awarded to them. We welcome the increases but as one would expect there are areas where we had hoped for further provision.

Down the years there was always a debate on the timing of payment of increases. Admittedly, the Budget Statement was in January and some increases were paid in June and July and sometimes later. I note that the payment of increases is more streamlined. However, I read in the documentation received last week that some of the increases take effect in January, which is welcome, while the increased payments for other schemes will run from February to June in some cases. In the course of the next few years we should aspire to streamline the increases and ensure that whatever increases are granted on the social welfare front would be paid simultaneously, if only from the point of view of avoiding confusion. In the long run most of these increases taking effect in March, April, May or June will be backdated. It would be a positive move if they could be introduced in a more streamlined fashion.

The main topic of conversation arising from the budget was the improvements provided to child benefit and child care and at the other end of the age spectrum the elderly. I have spoken here, on many occasions, and elsewhere on the issue of the carer's allowance. I welcome the recognition the Minister has given it by ensuring that from an individual perspective the carer's allowance is the social welfare scheme that provides the largest rate of payment. That is as it should be. I appeal to the Minister to give serious consideration to examining the means testing of the carer's allowance payment. I concede the income disregard has increased substantially and that will allow the carer's allowance to be paid to a greater number of people.

However, the care of thousands of elderly could be transformed if the means test was abolished for carer's allowance. As a society we should aspire, from a public policy perspective, to have the maximum possible number of people looked after for as long as possible in their own home. The carer's allowance plays a key role in that regard and I welcome the improvements wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, while the means test continues to exist there will be many who will not qualify.

We could have the same debate about child benefit and whether it should have been means tested when it was introduced 40, 50 or 80 years ago. Thankfully, it was not and will not be means tested. At the other end of the age spectrum we recognise the importance of helping the elderly to remain in their own community. If the Minister was to abolish the means test for carer's allowance he would leave a marvellous legacy in terms of his period as Minister. During the course of the next few months I ask him to set up a task force or review group to look at that issue. The cost benefit analysis shows that removal of the means test would lead to a dramatic increase in the numbers obtaining carer's allowance. That would be an excellent move for the elderly in our society.

Senator McCarthy spoke about a particular care in his constituency on disability allowance and the difficulties arising with the application procedure. I wish to raise a similar type case but in a sense it is unfair to draw individual cases to the Minister's attention. I have one particular case in my constituency of a man in his early 20s who, because of a phobia or some type of depression, is unwilling to leave his own house. He is so fearful of leaving his own house that he physically will not do so. He cannot be considered for a disability allowance because he cannot turn up for the medical examination.

It is clear that on medical grounds the young man in question is unable to work and will possibly remain so for the rest of his life. That is tragic. From the point of view of the family's finances a disability allowance should be awarded and would certainly be awarded on means grounds. On the basis that he is unable to turn up for the medical examination he is being refused the allowance. I would be grateful if the Minister should look at cases such as this where a person cannot physically attend at a medical centre for a medical examination or consider putting some other system in place. Perhaps I might be permitted to bring the individual case to the Minister's attention for his consideration in the next day or so.

Sometimes daft suggestions are made in this House and perhaps the Minister will include the one I am about to make on his list of strange ideas. However, quite a few elderly people have told me that they dislike the term "old age pension" and believe it is something that should be reviewed.

When the old age pension was introduced in the early part of the last century we had a very different concept of what it meant to be elderly and of the constraints on older people. Old age meant something very different 100 years ago. People at 65 or 66 are described as old age contributory or non-contributory pensioners but in many cases they are beginning a new phase of life. They are very active, fit and involved in their communities and they certainly would not classify themselves as being old. Perhaps the Minister might reflect on a new title for that pension, although it has served the country well for over 100 years. We have a so-called retirement pension for a certain category of people but perhaps we could have a "senior citizen's pension" or some other term, which would be a variation on the original theme. The term "old age" is one that should be reviewed, as it is a little outdated.

However, notwithstanding the title, I welcome the increase in the old age pension and the other increases for the elderly contained in the budget. Those increases are deserved because the elderly are the people who made this country. We speak of the Celtic tiger and of how the world has changed since 1987 but were it not for the contribution made by those who now qualify for social welfare pensions, our country would be a much poorer place, economically and socially. Every cent and euro spent on the elderly in our community through the budget is a way of returning to them what they have given us, tenfold, over the generations. We need more of the same recipe from all future Ministers for Social and Family Affairs. I am thankful for what the current Minister has been able to do and hope he will take on board some of the suggestions he has heard from this side of the House and work on them.