Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Feely and Ms Fahey for attending and for their excellent presentations. It is very difficult to disagree with anything they said. I also thank them for the work they are doing to promote the interests of the elderly and to keep those interests to the forefront. I thank the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for the wonderful work is doing on the ground, which I see at first hand in my constituency on a weekly basis.

I have a number of brief points to raise. The case has been made that while the monetary amount of other benefits has been reduced, pensions have not been reduced. The point the witnesses make very well is that pensions have effectively been reduced by a withdrawal of benefits such as free telephone rental, etc. The witnesses pointed to the ambition that the pension should be 35% of average earnings at a minimum, which would be €248 per week. The top rate at the moment for contributory old age pension is €233.

On the fuel allowance, the witnesses are proposing to extend it by four weeks at the new rate. The rate was changed last year. The suggestion made with regard to a lump sum is very good. I have come across situations in which some people are not able to enter into an agreement with the supplier to pay over a period. Do the witnesses have any figures on the percentage of people over the age of 66 who are totally reliant on the old age pension and who have no other source of income? I imagine we could work out the number of people over the age of 66 who have income only slightly in excess of the old age pension because one can only get the fuel allowance if one's income does not exceed the pension by €100 per week. If the witnesses can supply those figures, I would appreciate it.

On the presentation by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, we predicted everything Ms Fahey said about lone parents. We predicted it in the debate on the changes. What we have to do now is try to solve the situation and move forward. It should be borne in mind that the group experiencing the highest poverty levels in this society is that comprising lone parents. There is almost a 60% deprivation rate among lone parents, which is outrageous. I have said it thousands of times and I will repeat it again. Ms Fahey mentioned winners and losers. I have not come across too many winners; there are mainly losers. Lone parents, particularly those in employment, have lost out dramatically as a result of these changes. One of the suggestions made is to allow lone parents in employment whose children are aged between seven and 14 to receive both the jobseeker's transitional payment and family income supplement if they meet the qualifying criteria. The qualifying criterion for ordinary jobseeker's payment is that one cannot work more than three days a week. I am not sure if the qualification for the jobseeker's transitional payment is the same. If it is, this would be a problem. There are anomalies in the interactions between various payments. For example, one can get rent subsidy if one receives one type of payment and if one goes for another type of payment, one must forfeit the higher education grant. The whole thing is like something out of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

It seems to me that many of those anomalies have come in as a result of the changes made in reducing the age to seven. How many of those anomalies would be sorted out if, for example, we were to revert to when the age threshold was 14? What would need to be done in addition to that?

The organisations recommended an increase in rent supplement or HAP, housing assistance payment. Both were increased recently. What has been the actual effect of this in practice? Has it had any impact? A measure was introduced to freeze rent for two years. Has that had any effect in practice?

I agree with the organisations that the State should be the main provider of social housing, not the private sector. For the past six years, we have had the experience of using the private sector as the main provider of social housing. This has not, will not and cannot work.

The point was made on child care that only 0.2% of gross domestic product is invested in children before they start primary school. Are there any comparable figures for other OECD or EU countries?