Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

She will always be remembered for the savage 16 cuts. The Department of Social and Family Affairs handed back €840 million to the Exchequer over eight years. I would not mind if that happened as a result of savings. However, the Minister's predecessor visited €55 million worth of cuts on the most vulnerable people in the country at the time that money was being handed back. This is to her eternal shame. That record will be recalled in 2006, 2007 and the coming years. She let down the most marginalised people in the country. She told us she could not stand up to the Minister for Finance of the time, Mr. McCreevy. We tried to give her some backbone, but she failed the test.

There are still huge problems with regard to the anomaly of rent allowance. I see Deputy Fleming is here. I am sure he is aware there is a different measure in Laois and Offaly than in Longford and Westmeath and that he has spoken to community welfare officers on this matter. Deputies are not elected without speaking to such people. People are asking why, in the name of God, rent allowance in Laois and Offaly is €100 and in Westmeath and Longford it is €10 less. This legislation is trying to bring a level playing pitch, to ensure the same interpretation, and to ensure that people are not disadvantaged because of their geographical location. However, the system in operation is different in regard to the rent allowance. It is important to deal with this area.

The Minister referred to the family income supplement earlier. I understand he is examining child dependant allowance and working on a new extra child benefit. That is a good route to take. However, we must be honest. The Combat Poverty Agency made a very interesting observation yesterday about the skewing of the figures. It said the Minister will take a 25% hit if he takes the agency's advice about reducing the number of people. The agency's delegation spoke yesterday about the number of children living in poverty. If those comments had been made by representatives of the Labour Party, Fine Gael or Sinn Féin, or by Independent Members, the Minister would have jumped on them. The agency reported that 23% of the population, or more than 900,000 people, is living in income poverty. I refer in that case to the EU measure of income poverty. Some 9% of the population, or 375,000 people, are experiencing both income poverty and deprivation of basic necessities. In that case, I refer to the measure of consistent poverty used here.

The figures given by the Combat Poverty Agency in respect of children are most worrying. According to the agency, 15% of children — twice the adult rate — are suffering from the most severe form of consistent poverty. Some 120,000 people under the age of 15, or the equivalent of 145,000 people under the age of 18, are deprived of basic necessities. I know the Minister has targeted the figure of 60,000. I would favour a target of between 60,000 and 90,000. That is the most important place. The Minister is aiming at the right target, broadly speaking. In relation to one-parent families, it has to be done and I will outline how it can be done. In the past, the Government has shown a fondness for individualisation, particularly in the tax code. It abhors individualisation in the social welfare code, however. In that instance, it prefers to treat everyone in the same lump, as the fellow says, because it saves the Government money to do so. When it was able to take tax moneys by means of individualisation and getting people out to work, it was a different thing.

The abolition of the limitation rule, which prohibits families from claiming two unemployment benefit payments even if both adults satisfy the criteria for the payments, might be the best way to proceed. Many lone parents feel that the regulations which prevent them from cohabiting represent a restriction on their lifestyles. They are stopped from developing more stable family lives. Most people value the independent income that accrues to them from the social welfare payment provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I forget how many people are affected by this provision — perhaps the Minister mentioned a figure of 80,000 earlier. Such people are reluctant to become dependent on their partners for their economic security. A lone parent who wants to cohabit with a person who is in receipt of unemployment assistance finds that the couple's combined weekly income decreases by approximately €50. The two separate adult payments are reduced to a single combined payment, comprising one adult rate and one qualified adult rate. Both payments are made to the male partner.

Part of the problem we face in the social welfare code is that we have an old-fashioned view. The code was introduced in the 1950s when the male half of a couple was the predominant breadwinner. The Minister has to try to overturn the perception within the social welfare code of the male as the overall breadwinner. That perception has not changed since the 1950s because everything is aimed at trying to get the qualified adult dependant rate to 70% and things like that. I am trying to deal with this difficult issue, with which the Minister is grappling. As I have said, I do not mind seeing the Minister's picture because I know he is not looking for consultants to put it in the newspaper. I read the Minister's ideas with interest, funnily enough. We all need to give the Minister a hand in that regard. The Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs is willing to try to grapple and wrestle with this difficult problem.

I would like to speak about the habitual residence condition. As I hate to say "I told you so", I will not say it to the Minister on this occasion. However, I am prepared to say "I told your predecessor so". I understand the European Commission has put the Government in a tight hold in respect of the habitual residence condition. The records show that we warned the previous Minister that pressure would be applied at EU level. We told her that the predicted big influx would not happen — it has not happened — but she would not listen. Migrant workers suffer under the provisions of the habitual residence condition. The burden of proof falls on the applicants, who are assumed not to be habitually resident unless they can prove otherwise. The burden of proof is very high — one must prove that one intends to live in Ireland permanently. If one has a close family member living in another country, one is deemed to maintain habitual residency in that country. It is causing extreme hardship to people in dire circumstances. I refer to people who have lost their jobs, had accidents or become sick. Such events merit a response from our social protection system. A migrant worker who is not protected by the social insurance system because his or her employer has gained an exemption is refused any support from the State. We know about what has been done by some of the boys who have gained exemptions.

I ask the Minister, Deputy Brennan, to act before he is forced to act. I remember warning his predecessor, Deputy Coughlan, that what has happened would happen. I will conclude by reminding the Minister that we are not all fools on this side of the House.

See this speech in context