Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

I thank all the Deputies who spoke on the Bill. I listened to every contribution and took careful note of the themes, ideas and concerns put forward by Deputies. It was a very constructive debate and I thank each and every Deputy who took the trouble to contribute to it. It was the type of debate I hope we can have on many occasions so that we can steer the policy forward.

For the first time this Bill is called the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. I did that deliberately to highlight the fact that as much as one third of the Bill deals with pensions. It is important that we put the issue of pensions to the fore in so far as we can, and this Bill does that by putting in place the IORPs directive and various regulations in that regard. I thank everyone who worked on the Bill, including my own officials who are here, the Department, the parliamentary counsel and everybody else involved. It takes an army of people to produce legislation as complex and as targeted as this Bill. Our thanks are due to all of them.

A number of themes came up over the past two days in our discussions on the Bill. It is important to remind ourselves as a nation — many Deputies used this figure in the past two days — that one third of all Government expenditure now goes on the area of social welfare. That is a substantial commitment by the taxpayer to meet our social obligations, be it to the young, the elderly or those at working age. That comes to €12.2 billion this year and is double the amount available to the State in 1997. This year, €1 billion extra over 2004 will be spent on the area of social welfare. That includes the budget figure and the natural increase in the Estimates figure. We are talking about an extra €1 billion in 2005 over 2004.

Deputies should remember also that the €14 weekly increase in the lower rate of welfare this year is the highest increase ever provided and it brings the lowest rate up to €148.80, which is an increase of more than 10%. That represents a very substantial step towards the Government's target of bringing these payments to €150 per week in 2002 terms by 2007. We are determined to meet those targets.

Everybody points out that the best road out of poverty is employment and that Ireland has achieved the lowest unemployment rate in the European Union, which is a major factor in increasing incomes and removing people from the risk of poverty and social exclusion, and strong economic growth is the best policy instrument to tackle poverty. Having said that, I am a firm believer in targeting the resources we have and targeting the action at those people who are most vulnerable and on the margins. That is what the taxpayer would expect us to do with the funds made available, which are now very substantial and amount to one third of all Government spending.

The causes of poverty are many and complex. Deputies will be well aware of the complexity of this area and tackling it is part of a national action plan against poverty, which includes a range of actions on employment, social welfare, education, health, housing, disability, equality and many other areas, including taxation in terms of the so-called working poor. I said many times and I say again that tackling poverty must be done in a co-ordinated way with perhaps up to half a dozen Departments being directly involved. It is incumbent on those Departments, therefore, to work together and to have a joined up strategy under the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion so that we can eradicate poverty from our midst.

Child poverty was raised in the debate also. I pointed out that child benefit is the main instrument we use in this regard. It is also worth pointing out that between 2001 and 2005 total increases in child benefit were in the order of 65%, which is significant. Successive Governments have favoured child benefit over child dependant allowance because that form of support for children is neutral as between families in receipt of social welfare payments and those where the parents are in employment. There is no disincentive to employment built into child benefit because it is paid irrespective of whether one is employed or unemployed.

In 1994 child benefit represented 29% of the total child income support payments for a four child family receiving a social welfare payment. It now represents 66% of such support payment. It will reach 70% when the final phase of the current child benefit strategy is completed. A person would, therefore, only lose 30% of his or her child income support when he or she moves from a welfare payment to employment or in the case of single parents, when he or she moves into a long-term relationship or a better job. Successive Governments have been of the opinion that it is better to pay child benefit than child dependant allowance.

In line with the commitments in Sustaining Progress under the heading child poverty initiative, Deputies will be aware that a study is being carried out by NESC on amalgamating child dependant allowances with the family income supplement. The idea is that FIS and, in certain respects, child benefit would be pulled together to provide a unified supplementary child benefit focused on low income families. This would again be a neutral payment as between families where the parents are in employment and those where they are in receipt of social welfare.

The figure of 66,000 has been referred to on numerous occasions during the debate in respect of child poverty. I am working on trying to put in place a unified supplementary scheme which would specifically target those 66,000 or so children — there is some debate about the actual number. One of the ways to do this would almost certainly be to run with the NESC's proposals in this regard in respect of a second tier. I look forward to obtaining the result of the study as soon as possible. If we proceed as outlined, we would be able to channel extra resources to low income families without creating a disincentive to employment. It is not fair to the people involved to have payments which act as a disincentive to employment. Everyone in this House agrees that employment, if available and chosen by a person, offers the best way out of deprivation. It is incumbent, therefore, on the House and the Government not to perpetuate structures that act as a disincentive to employment or to returning to education.

I make a commitment to the House — the Minister for Finance has confirmed this — that the child benefit package will be completed in next year's budgetary process. A number of Members pointed out that we have reached 96% of our commitment in this regard. This will be brought up to 100% in the next budget.

Much has been said about lone parents. I do not wish to revisit all the points made but it is generally accepted that one of the most effective routes out of poverty for vulnerable people in this category is through paid employment and education. It is incumbent on us to design systems that encourage them to take up employment or enter education. I spoke about that matter in public recently. It is worth reminding lone parents who exceed the upper income limit when applying for one-parent family payment that they may qualify for family income supplement. The latter scheme is designed to provide income support for employees on low earnings who have children. It helps make work pay for such employees.

See this speech in context