Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

I know the Senator did not start it, but I will not blame anyone. It is time we moved on. We should always encourage responsible fiscal management of the country and budget surpluses. To throw money at people and go into debt is not the way forward. It happened between 1977 and 1979 and it bankrupted the country. Senator Brady agrees with me but I will not engage in that debate today.

I broadly welcome the announcements made in the budget on social welfare and believe there is cross-party support for them. However, I will pick up on five or six key points when I have the opportunity to do so. My colleague, Deputy Stanton, raised them with the Minister in the Dáil.

The first issue is my hobby horse and concerns the bulk payment of the fuel allowance. Getting a fuel allowance of €18 per week is fine if one is getting briquettes or bags of coals delivered to one's house. If a person uses oil and gets a minimum delivery costing €200 or €300, one is in trouble. I fail to understand why the option of receiving the fuel allowance in a bulk payment is not explored. The Minister will say that recipients could drink the money or spend it irresponsibly. If this was the case, pensions or other payments should also paid by day or by the hour, but we do not do so. I understand that 80% of local authority houses in County Kilkenny use oil for fuel so there is a need for this method of payment.

The Minister has not acted so far but I urge him to investigate the possibility of a bulk payment. I know he is interested in looking at it. Perhaps his civil servants are holding him back or his political advisers are not too sure, but I urge him to seriously consider giving the option to people to receive a bulk payment possibly once or twice a year, instead of receiving it on a weekly basis for six months. He could do so through a voucher system that links in directly with the oil company or whatever company is involved, be it in terms of deliveries of coal, wood pellets or whatever fuel they use. It would make far more sense.

I have spoken with community welfare officers who have told me they have been inundated with people coming in because they get a €300 bill for oil which they cannot afford to pay. It is not possible to tell an oil company that one will pay it back through weekly payments of €18 for the next few weeks. The company will not deliver. I raised this issue with the Minister before and I thank him for his courtesy in listening to me, but I urge and encourage him to look again at this issue. It would be a very successful initiative and would free up considerable time for community welfare officers who must deal with problems arising from the current method of payment. We should give people the bulk payment and see how they spend it. If they avail of such a payment and come back looking for more, they will not receive it. I imagine most people will use the scheme and that it will not be abused. It is worth examining.

My second question concerns refuse collection. The refuse service in Carlow was privatised, which I welcome. The only difficulty is that there is no waiver scheme as a result. The Minister might advise that people can claim it back on their tax but a pensioner who is not paying tax because he or she does not have an income cannot do so. This issue needs to be looked at. A waiver scheme or some system to offset the cost of refuse collection for pensioners is needed.

Another question that is probably more problematic is free travel for people living in remote rural areas. If I live in Dublin and have a free travel pass, I can use the Luas, the DART, the train service and buses without difficulty. However, if I live in a rural part of counties Carlow, Galway or Mayo, I cannot use the service. I recently met with a group of pensioners who suggested a vouchers system for the use of taxis or hackneys could be a way around this. The Minister is originally from Galway, but I am not sure if he is a city man or from a rural part of the county. However, I am sure he understands the isolation felt by people in the country and would agree there is discrimination between those living in the city and those living in rural areas. Even though they have the same free travel pass, people in urban areas have a much better service by comparison with those in more remote rural areas.

In his radio programme on Today FM, Ray D'Arcy spoke about paternity leave and maternity leave. He made the point that if a woman has a baby, she can take a total of 47 weeks between the minimum amount and the additional leave, but a man can only take three days. I am not too sure if those figures are correct. One individual suggested the possibility of splitting leave. The roles of mothers and fathers have changed dramatically. I was reared by my mother and my father put food on the table. However, he was not a very hands-on person. The set-up in respect of the new generation is completely different, as my brothers-in-law can attest. Fathers now take an active role in the rearing of their children. Would it be possible, therefore, to split the arrangement? For example, a couple might decide that instead of one person taking the 47 weeks, one could take 23 weeks and the other 24. That might not suit everyone but I am sure people provide care for their children on such a basis. Perhaps we should move away from the stereotype of a woman having a baby and then automatically caring for it and recognise that many fathers play a far more active role in rearing their children and that they might require more time off work.

As far as I am aware, BUPA will announce today that it is withdrawing from the Irish market as a result of the policy of risk equalisation. Consequently, there will be difficulties in the health insurance sector. The nursing home payment announced recently by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, will also give rise to major problems. Prior to her announcement on Monday last, I suggested to the House that perhaps it is time to consider introducing a special fund into which people might pay in respect of future nursing home charges. Only 5% of people will end up in nursing homes. None of us knows whether this will be our fate. If a person ends up in such a home, he or she does not know whether his or her stay will last a few months or for much longer.

People have great difficulty with their family homes being used in calculations relating to their nursing home care. Some 50% of citizens have private health insurance. People have displayed great willingness to pay premiums for better health services. In my view, they would not have a difficulty paying an extra small sum towards possible future nursing home costs. Either the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the Department of Health and Children should encourage the VHI and other private health insurers to introduce special schemes into which people might pay money so that if they end up in nursing homes, they would be in a position to draw down funds. This would mean that their family homes would not be brought into the equation. It will be difficult to use the value of people's homes when calculating the cost of their nursing home care. It is fine to state that a 15% levy will apply in the context of the value of people's homes but if a someone's estate has not been finalised perhaps ten to 15 years after his or her death, what will happen? It must be remembered that awful rows can arise in families in respect of the settling of estates, etc.

I am not sure whether action should be taken by private health insurers in this regard or whether the Department of Social and Family Affairs should introduce a scheme similar to that which applied in respect of SSIAs. Most people might not need to use the money saved and if not, they could get it back. If individuals were obliged to enter nursing home care, they could draw down funds from the scheme. This would mean that their family homes would not be tampered with. Such a scheme would be a great success and consideration should be given to its introduction.

The number of 85 year olds is going to treble in the next 30 years and the number of those over 65 will double in the same period. Problems will arise in that regard in future and it is time we made preparations in this area. It is also time that people accepted responsibility. In addition, the Government should provide people with incentives and encouragement and either put in place a private fund or encourage the private health insurance companies to do so.