David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I also thank him and his officials for the comprehensive and welcome briefing the Opposition received on the Bill yesterday evening. I recognise the huge amount of work that has gone into this Bill on the part of the Minister and his officials, as well as the work due later in the year with regard to the Consolidation Bill. We will go back as far as 1889 and change some of the legislation still on the books since that time. There will be a massive amount of work involved. The changeover from the health boards to the Health Service Executive has caused much work for officials in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, as they must go through the legislation and make changes. We must therefore be careful when we make changes here.

There was an unfortunate newspaper column in recent weeks. In one sense, it raised the issue of lone parents and exposed the problems faced by thousands of families struggling daily to provide the most basic necessities for their children. That debate is ongoing and it is important we keep it so. The Minister reacted to this debate by talking about some family friendly payment. I urge him to introduce this as quickly as possible. I will pursue the Minister on this matter. We do not want just an announcement but action and solid proposals brought to the House for debate.

An EU report revealed that Irish women are at greater risk of poverty than their counterparts in any other member state. A total of 23% of Irish women are at risk of poverty. That report was released yesterday. The Minister and his colleagues tell us how well off we are but an independent, outside body has conducted research and found that we are not doing well enough. It states, in effect, that the Minister must do better.

The CSO recently published a report which estimated that approximately 120,000 children and over 23,000 lone parent households with children are living in consistent poverty. That is not good enough. The Minister dismisses relative income poverty, claiming it does not count, and says the Government is dealing with consistent poverty. However, the CSO report refers to consistent poverty. This means the children concerned do not have a proper coat and only have a proper meal every second day. This is happening in Ireland today.

Of the member states of the EU, Ireland has the greatest gap between the rich and the poor. It is the Minister's job to deal with this. Unfortunately, however, there is no measure in this Bill, or indeed in last year's Bill, to deal with it. The Minister and his predecessors have made matters worse. According to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, over 50,000 households are on waiting lists for social housing. The estimated number of homeless households remains high at 3,773 in 2002 compared with 3,743 in 1999. The situation has got worse.

Other recent studies found that the number of children living in housing that is overcrowded, damp, in disrepair and in poor neighbourhoods had more than doubled up to 2002. As many as 243,000 children in 94,000 households are at risk of experiencing detrimental living conditions. These are the facts. Children of lone parents are far more likely to experience the housing problems cited. One third of all lone parent families live in local authority housing compared with just 7% of couples with children. The impact of these issues on the children's welfare is manifest in their increased risk of psychological, respiratory, general health and behavioural problems, all of which impact on their education, health and sense of well-being. That was the finding of Trinity College's children's research centre in a report published in October 2004, Housing Problems and Irish Children.

A Combat Poverty Agency study in 2001 showed that there is a link between low income, poverty and health. Two thirds of 30 families in the study had some health problems. People affected by ill health are more likely to live on low income because they are unable to gain employment or because their employment experiences are likely to be sporadic due to ill health. Stress, isolation and depression were induced by lack of money and inadequate income made it difficult to have a healthy diet. The Combat Poverty Agency report is entitled, Against All Odds — Family Life on a Low Income in Ireland.

The same study also covered the issue of living in deprived communities. The report highlighted the generally inadequate provision of public housing and the absence of affordable, private sector housing. These problems were particularly acute in Dublin but we see them throughout the country. Parents were worried that playgrounds were not safe for children. People living in disadvantaged housing estates are not only highly likely to become victims of crime but anticipate this as part of their daily lives. In a third of households surveyed, relationships with neighbours were problematic and it was not uncommon for these people to live in terror of their neighbours. Many people felt bullied. The same situation occurs throughout the country.

There is no co-ordinated thinking on the part of the Government to deal with these issues. The Minister spoke recently about joined up thinking and joined up Government with regard to child care and other such issues. There must be action soon on these issues. Houses are being built throughout the country but no community facilities are being provided. In one area there was an obligation on the developer to make a crèche available. However, the rent for the crèche is so high that nobody can afford to rent it. That is appalling but the Government sits idly by, impervious to what is happening. Many of its members do not appear to realise what is happening.

The Minister can react to the furore last week, but that is all he does. We need action in this area. In budget 2005, the Government broke its promises on child benefit payments for the third year in a row. What the Minister is introducing today is a broken promise. He spoke about the increases in child benefit, which are welcome, but they do not keep pace with the commitment his predecessors made in the past. Child dependant allowance has been frozen since 1994. This payment helps families struggling on social welfare. Why has the Minister turned his face against helping such families?

The Minister spoke about a second tier of payments for families that are struggling to survive. He has been speaking about this since he took office but there has been no action. The Bill was an opportunity to bring forward proposals for a second tier of payments but they are not in it. Now we must wait for next year's Social Welfare Bill before possibly seeing action in this regard. This Bill is a missed opportunity.

The back to school clothing and footwear allowances have not increased for the second year in a row. These two payments are targeted at those most in need, the people who, according to the Minister, are struggling to make ends meet. There are many such people and, unfortunately, some of them are not succeeding. By not recognising the importance of these two payments and not increasing child benefit the Minister has added to the pain and suffering experienced by these families.

There is a dearth of affordable child care for parents, particularly lone parents. I will support the Minister in any proposal he makes in this area. I urge him, as a priority, to get together with his Government colleagues and bring forward the joined up Government he mentioned. Unless a family or individual is wealthy, early education for one's child is a luxury in this country. In other European countries it is the norm. In Finland, for example, the state provides early education and children do not start formal schooling until they are seven years of age.

I have encountered cases in this country where children are going to school before they are four years of age, even though they should not be. The parents have no choice. I asked parliamentary questions on this last year and was given a response by the then Minister, so I am not making it up. I was shocked to discover that. Furthermore, the National Educational Welfare Board does not have enough money to carry out its tasks.

This is an area for which the Minister is responsible and on which he should focus but he is failing to do so. The National Educational Welfare Board was established on foot of legislation passed by the Houses. Everybody supported the legislation. However, the funding was increased by only €1.3 million even though the board sought €6.1 million. Currently, there is one educational welfare officer for every 12,000 students entitled to receive a service from the board. The international norm is one for 3,000.

The famous savage 16 cuts are only partly amended. For a Government that is supposed to be caring, it is difficult to understand why the cuts were introduced and I am disappointed the Minister did not take this opportunity to rescind them. There was a long debate on the back to education allowance. The Minister reduced the period from 15 to 12 months. He told the House previously that he would reduce it to nine months so why did he not do so in the Bill? What is the Minister waiting for? The current situation goes against expert advice given at the time the BTA was introduced. At the time, the advice was that anything longer than six months would be retrogressive. The Minister has had two opportunities to change the matter this year, yet he has failed to do so. The Minister should examine this point and table an amendment on Committee Stage to reduce the period to nine months. We would support such an amendment. If not, perhaps the Minister will tell us why he will not do so.

The Bill will restore traditional half-rate payments for recipients of one-parent family payments for six months, where income exceeds €293 per week. This is a reversal as, prior to the cutback, recipients received traditional half-rate payments for 12 months. Supplementary welfare allowance recipients have been assisted by MABS in dealing with creditors but this service has been discontinued. The allocation to fund the service used to be €700,000 per year but the Government has now replaced annual funding with a one-off payment.

The crèche supplement payment is being continued but it will be much more difficult to avail of than heretofore. If the Minister discussed this matter with community welfare officers around the country, they could tell him about the problems they are facing.

Restoration of the diet supplement is pending a report on its adequacy and application by the Irish Nutrition and Dietary Institute. The Government is once again awaiting a report before it takes action but how long does it take to obtain a report on something as simple as this? Why not leave the supplement in place until the report is published? It is like a three-card trick: the supplement is taken away and the Minister then says he will bring it back if he receives a favourable report. Why not leave the supplement alone, however, and make the change when the expert report is received?

The referral of claimants for rent supplement to local authorities for assessment seems to be under consultation with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but it is unclear as to what is happening. Even the officials concerned are unclear about it. Perhaps the Minister can explain that matter because it needs to be clarified. The amendment to the rent supplement conditions whereby applicants may be refused if they have not been renting for a period of six months is ambiguous. It may still mean that applicants will have to provide proof that they are already renting in order to claim the supplement. We are talking, in particular, about people who are fleeing domestic violence. The Minister should re-examine this serious problem because people fleeing domestic violence may not be able to avail of the rent supplement. Community welfare officers are unclear about this point so it is the Minister's responsibility to clarify it.

I could talk also about the medical card list but that matter is ongoing and people are almost punch drunk from listening to broken promises.

There are many aspects of the Bill which I welcome but they do not include the fact that child benefit has not been increased as promised. Fine Gael will not support that part of the Bill because the Government made a promise but did not keep it.

From April, persons in receipt of injury benefit who suffer a second injury will thus establish their entitlement to disability benefit. That is a good move with which I agree. The relaxation of employment conditions for entitlement to carer's benefit is also welcome.

The Bill provides for an improvement in the annual respite care grant from June. The Minister is correct in identifying carers as a group in society that needs special support. I welcome extension of the respite grant to all carers. I ask the Minister to ensure that the definition of those in need of carers and caring generally will not be too restrictive. We will have to examine how the grant extension works out but it is a good move that I welcome.

The provision of respite care means people will get a bed in a nursing home or hospital so the carer can avail of a break. Unfortunately, however, the provision of such respite places is limited. Issues may arise later on about the difficulty in obtaining such places, so we will have to see how the matter pans out.

I welcome the idea of introducing care sharing. Even though only one carer's allowance payment will be made in any one week in respect of full-time care of a care recipient, it is a positive step because it means people can share caring duties. Fine Gael believes the longer we can support people in their own home environment the better, rather than sending elderly people to nursing homes. People should be cared for in their own homes for as long as possible and I support anything the Minister may do to achieve that end.

I hope the issue of nursing homes will be debated in the House later today. We have heard what happened in regard to the Supreme Court's judgment. Clarity is required on that matter sooner rather than later. I hope the Government will allow a debate on it this evening because people require such clarification. The matter will be a major talking point across the country in the coming days with regard to how matters will progress from here.

When enacted, the Bill will include the Mental Health Commission in the list of specified bodies authorised to use personal public service numbers. The PPS number allows access to all kinds of personal information so we must be cautious in extending its authorised use. I note there is provision in the legislation to bring together all the bodies that can access the PPS number, which is particularly welcome. The use of such numbers, however, needs to be tightened up securely. There was some talk recently that it may be linked to the register of electors but I would not be too happy about that.

The bereavement grant is to be automatically awarded and that is a common-sense step which I welcome.

The Minister is giving himself more leeway to initiate summary prosecutions for cases involving social welfare fraud. I agree that anyone who abuses the system should be taken on and if more time is required to prepare such cases or obtain papers, it should be provided.

On the issue of guardians and orphans perhaps the Minister will examine the rights of fathers in view of the fact that the family law Bill is due to be introduced shortly. Nowadays, many people choose not to get married and in such cases a father may have no automatic right of guardianship unless he signs an order in that regard. The forthcoming family law Bill is supposed to deal with that issue but the Minister, Deputy Brennan, should examine the matter. He has referred to fathers' rights and I agree that we need to examine those rights. We also need to look at co-parenting of children. All these wider policy areas must be underpinned legally by legislation.

The Bill before the House tightens up the definition of an "orphan". Thankfully, we do not have too many orphans in society now and the number of those defined as orphans has actually fallen.

The issue of social welfare overpayments arose when the Department overpaid a certain number of old age pensioners. The Department then sought repayments by return of post stating that the pensioners would not receive their pensions the following week. In doing that, the Department broke its own rules. According to existing regulations, in the case of overpayment the Department should discuss the method of repayment with those concerned. Such matters should be negotiated but that did not happen in this case — the pensioners were just told that their pensions were being stopped.

I would be cautious about the Bill's provision to prescribe regulations concerning the approach to future social welfare overpayments. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us on Committee Stage what he intends to do in this regard. If he intends to do what he did over the Christmas period, I certainly could not support it. A mechanism is required whereby the Department will negotiate with people and take their individual circumstances into account. When people received this payment at Christmas, many thought it was another bonus and spent it. The following week they received a letter saying they would get no payment for that week. I do not know whether the Minister was aware of this at the time. However, many of these people had spent the money and they had no money the following week. This should not happen again, particularly since the Department's rules and regulations prevent this.

I welcome the alignment of the carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the homemaker's and respite care schemes. When will the Bill to amend the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 1993 be introduced? It would be useful to know because we would like to plan ahead given that it will involve a great deal of work.

The Minister has done significant work on pensions. He referred to opportunities for Ireland in the context of pan-European pensions under the directive. That is exciting. The tightening of the administration of schemes and the move to prevent people of dubious repute becoming trustees of pension schemes are welcome. The increase from €4,000 to €10,000 in the transfer value in respect of which a certificate comparing potential benefits from occupational pension schemes with those funded by a personal retirement savings account is also welcome, as is the increase in the cooling off period from 15 to 30 days. It is needed because 15 days is short. People need complete information about what they are getting into when taking out PRSAs. They need time to reflect on what they have done and then have an opportunity to withdraw if they wish.

Much more work needs to be done, as the Minister acknowledged. He stated at the beginning of his contribution that 1.5 million, including dependants, benefit from social welfare payments and two out of every five people in the State receive vital welfare supports. However, this can be looked on in two ways. The State is doing a great job supporting people or a great number of people at risk of consistent poverty need State support. We should all work to help people to become more independent to support themselves.

The working poor is the new phenomenon. This group comprises people in employment who are on low wages. They lose many of their benefits when they take up employment. The Labour Party has highlighted the loss of medical cards in recent days because of this phenomenon. I have met many young couples with young children who are under enormous financial pressure. Many are renting because of the lack of housing provision, which is the Government's fault. They earn low wages and have no medical cards, which is also the Government's fault because it has failed to provide them. If their children fall ill, they attend a doctor and must pay €50, which is followed by a trip to the pharmacy for medicine, which costs another €50. These couples are not being supported and that is the Government's fault. The number of people affected is increasing.

The Minister alluded to the number of people who do not pay tax, but they are not earning enough to do so and they are caught in this trap. That must be recognised and it must be ensured the family income supplement is made available to these people and that they are aware of it. They could also benefit from the clothing and footwear allowance and the CDA but the Government has neglected these benefits. I do not know why. Perhaps it is based on an underlying Government philosophy. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated inequality is good in society and it is good that there are poor people in society. We are almost back to the Dickensian model of the deserving and undeserving poor. It has shades of "Oliver Twist". The Minister has not stated whether he agrees with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's assertion that inequality is good. He is the Minister for equality, not inequality. I challenge the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, when replying to the debate, to outline whether he thinks inequality in society is good.

Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform think there is a dynamic that forces poor people to work harder so that they become better off? That is skewed Progressive Democrats thinking. I do not agree with his assertion. Everybody must have an equal opportunity and people must be supported as best they can. We must support those who need it most. The Government has not done so in this legislation or in previous legislation introduced by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Coughlan, which included the savage 16 cutbacks. The Minister had an opportunity to reverse all those cutbacks but he did not take it. He fudged the issue. He issued press releases and held press conferences to outline all the positive changes he would make, but that has not happened. Last week he jumped on the bandwagon in the one-parent family debacle and controversy. A timeframe for action is needed.

As the Minister acknowledged, following eight years of Government failure in this area, a great deal remains to be done. The Government parties have had more money than any Government in the history of the State. However, international bodies have stated Irish women are at greater risk of poverty than their counterparts in any other EU member state and 120,000 children and lone parents live in consistent poverty. The greatest gap between rich and poor in the EU is found in Ireland. The Minister needs to do much more and we expect more activity during the short period he remains in Government.

See this speech in context