Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2005. I stated on a previous occasion that I welcomed the €14 per week increase for recipients of the long-term rates of welfare payments and the €12 increase for pensions. However, this is the very minimum that people could expect to receive, given the finances available to the Minister of Finance at the end of 2004. For example, tax receipts for last year were €1.7 billion above expectations. Many of the increases did not meet the expectations of the various groups working on the ground on a daily basis with vulnerable people.

The media would indicate there was a €12 to €14 increase in pensions. I received a telephone call yesterday afternoon from a constituent who receives a pre-retirement allowance and whose wife is on an invalidity pension. He was informed that his increase for the coming year would be 30 cent per week. The Minister should look at that situation, because these people must live in the same environment as the rest of us.

We are one of the richest countries in Europe. However, are we an inclusive country? The test of this is how we encompass the most vulnerable in our society. It is a cause of great concern that significant minorities still do not have the basic necessities to live on a daily basis, such as food or clothing. The increase in relative poverty and the widening gap between those on welfare and low incomes and the remainder of our society reflects badly on many of the policies and legislation enacted by this Government in recent years. Almost 800,000 of the population are below 60% of the median income and are experiencing basic deprivation. The increase of €14 is unlikely to drastically change the lifestyle of a person living on €148.80 per week who has no immediate prospect of securing a job or a local authority house. Having listened to the contributions by Government speakers, it seems they are not living in the real world. I am confident that they will get a rude awakening when they knock on doors during the two by-election campaigns in Meath and Kildare North over the coming weeks.

The increases provided for in this Bill amount to approximately €2 per day, a sum one might often throw into a collection box as a contribution. Since 1 January 2005, increased rents for local authority houses have impacted on those fortunate enough to be accommodated in this manner. The increases will amount, at least, to €1.60 per week, on top of which people will have to endure an ever-increasing range of stealth taxes, including price rises for fuel, food and ESB charges to name but a few. We have a relatively low-tax economy but our stealth charges are among the highest.

This year, for the first time, many older people, welfare recipients and low-income earners have been hit by an additional charge in the form of waste charges imposed by local authority county managers. This charge is unfair and represents a hardship for people in these categories. I have no difficulty with waste charges in context but it is unfair to impose them on people who are unable to pay. The Labour Party believes that a national waiver scheme should be introduced. It is most unfair that people whose waste is collected by a private operator have no waiver facility, while local authorities which retain waste collection in public ownership provide a waiver scheme on grounds of hardship. Such local authority waiver schemes may vary but at least they are available.

My colleague, Deputy Gilmore, introduced the Labour Party's Private Members' motion on the national waiver scheme on Tuesday. The motion, however, was voted down by the Government parties last night, which was a disgrace. Deputy Gilmore outlined how such a scheme could be administered through the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

In its pre-budget submission, the Irish Senior Citizens' Parliament stated:

The charges for refuse removal in local authority areas have a serious impact on the disposable income of older people. This arises from the lack of uniformity in waiver systems in the different local authority areas. Where local authorities continue to collect refuse there is a waiver and where it is collected privately there is no waiver.

The Senior Citizens' Parliament is calling on the Government to introduce a national waiver system similar to the one which used to operate in Dublin City Council. It operates in my area of Fingal County Council where people who are not liable for income tax receive a waiver. The Minister and his Department should examine such a mechanism. It would be realistic to introduce a scheme to cover the groups of people to which I referred earlier. Alternatively, tax credits could be made available for those working on low incomes. A range of issues could be used to deal with this matter, so I implore the Minister to examine the options. Before the year is out, he should try to introduce a scheme to bring fairness to people in need, particularly the elderly and those on low incomes who have not been able to avail of a waiver for waste collection charges in certain areas.

In November 2003, the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, introduced the so-called "savage 16" cuts. These individual cuts caused, and continue to cause, widespread consequences for welfare recipients and people at work. One of the cuts discontinued the half-rate unemployment benefit for those in receipt of a widow's or widower's pension, or one-family payments. However, it was fully rescinded by the Minister shortly afterwards following unrelenting opposition pressure in the House and in the media by widows' and lone parents' groups. I must acknowledge that some Fianna Fáil backbenchers also supported us on that point and the Minister then relented.

When Deputy Brennan became Minister for Social and Family Affairs, I got the impression, having read the newspapers, that he intended to rescind the remaining 15 cuts. It is worth putting on record the situation following the Minister's review. As regards unemployment benefit, the underlying number of paid contributions from insurable employment increased from 39 to 52. That also applies to disability benefit and health and safety benefit, so there was no change.

Unemployment benefit payment was reduced from 390 to 312 days where a person has paid less than 260 PRSI contributions since first entering employment. There was no change in that case either.

The weekly earnings threshold to qualify for unemployment benefit was raised from €88.88 to €150. This also applied to disability benefit. To the best of my knowledge, this represented no change.

There has been an increase in the period where claims are linked with a previous claim for unemployment benefit. This is important for people who fall ill while working. Previously the period was 13 weeks but it has been increased to 26 weeks. It also applies to disability benefit, so there has been no change.

There has been a small change in the next category: the payment of a half-rate, child dependant allowance was discontinued where a claimant's spouse or partner's gross weekly income is over €300. This also applies to disability benefit and health and safety benefit. In this case, the weekly income limit was increased by €50 to €350.

There has been no change in the social welfare allowance rent or mortgage supplement. Personal contributions were increased by €1.30 per week. As regards the mortgage supplement, where one partner is in full-time employment, both are excluded from claiming. There is no change in this case but it has been referred to the social partners' working group. It is easy for the Minister to do that but as I have stated on numerous occasions, both to the current Minister and his predecessor, this matter must be re-examined. Given the lack of local authority housing and the fact that the number of applicants for such accommodation has tripled since the Government took office, these difficulties must be tackled. People on low incomes who wish to live together and continue working, may be in private rented accommodation. However, if one of them is working and, even if he or she is only earning the minimum wage, rent supplement will not be provided. This needs to be addressed. I acknowledge the little movement on the other cutbacks. The Minister should conduct a further review of these cutbacks to improve the lot of those affected, particularly those in low paid employment.

I refer to the role of carers in society and the manner in which the State has responded. I compliment the Minister on the improvements he has provided for in the legislation, in particular, the increase in the annual respite grant to €1,000 and the amendment to the assessment of capital means for certain assistance payments. I would have substantially increased the number of carers qualifying under the carer's allowance and benefit schemes.

Up to relatively recently, the carer's role has been largely defined by tradition, culture and religious factors incorporating concepts of self-sacrifice, duty and acceptance. Thankfully, this attitude has changed and carers are emerging as people who wish to care for their loved ones but who are increasingly angry about the lack of recognition, service and support for their role. Given the number of carers providing such support and the resultant saving to the State, they are still angry that more of them are not being recognised.

The entitlement to the respite care grant will be extended to persons providing full-time care. Thousands of carers provide care 24 hours a day and they are not eligible for this grant for a number of reasons. They might have an income or they might be in receipt of a second welfare payment or their spouses might have a pension from a previous employer. However, these carers provide a 24 hour service on a daily basis. Will they be entitled to the respite care grant following the changes to the scheme? If so, how does the Minister propose to advertise this and bring it to their attention that they may fall into this category?

The recent article in The Irish Times by Kevin Myers labelling children of lone parents as bastards was utterly offensive, regrettable and inaccurate and it was an attack on children. I totally accept the apology subsequently given by Mr. Myers on this matter, but the presentation and tone of the article took from an issue that must be addressed. I welcome the Minister's initiative to address this issue, although he has not given many details regarding how he intends to do so. Lone parents must be provided with an opportunity to return to the workforce and improve their educational qualifications. Many of them only have basic first level education. Generally they have one or two children and the issue of providing them with opportunities to better themselves in terms of education and returning to the workforce must be examined. The Minister will have my support and that of my party in analysing this issue. We might not reach a consensus but the issue must be addressed.

I have difficulties with the legislation. Considering the budget available, the commitments entered into by the Government prior to the 2002 general election on pensions and child benefit still have not been met. The Minister could have done more on these and other issues. We still have difficulties with the legislation and we will oppose it.

See this speech in context