Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)

I thank my colleague, Deputy Ring, for sharing time. I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Consolidation Bill 2005. I am glad the Minister, Deputy Brennan, and his senior officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs are present for this debate. I am sure some of the officials who have heard me talking about various matters over the years could predict in advance the comments I am about to make. I will repeat those comments in the hope that, at some stage, what I say might be heard. In regard to the child dependant allowance, for the benefit of those who do not know, if one is in receipt of social welfare and has child dependants, one gets a rate of payment to help look after the children. Believe it or not, three different rates of payment apply depending on the status of the parent. If the parent is on unemployment benefit, the rate of payment for looking after a child is approximately €16 per week, but if the parent is on lone parent allowance, the rate of payment is approximately €19 per week and if the parent is on disability or invalidity allowance, the rate of payment is approximately €21 per week. How does the Minister justify having three rates of payment for looking after children? He is discriminating against children based on the status of the parent. That is unfair and should be put right.

The Minister will not put it right because the vast majority of parents in receipt of child dependant allowance receive it at the lower rate of €16. Therefore, any change would increase the cost because, as it would not be possible to reduce benefits, it would be necessary to bring all up to the top rate. This situation is grossly unjust and needs to be put right. The Minister should not respond with the standard reply that a higher rate could be seen as a disincentive to return to work, which is rubbish.

The second issue, touched on by Deputy Ring, concerns what are termed short-term payments and long-term payments. Within the social welfare code, a number of payments are classified as short-term, some of which are insurance or stamps based. One such payment is disability benefit. Although the Department of Social and Family Affairs classifies this as a short-term payment, it is possible to stay on disability benefit for the duration of one's life. A person can receive it once he or she has 260 stamps paid, which is a total of five year's payments. Therefore, it is possible to receive disability benefit from, say, the age of 25 and for a further 40 years. Yet, lo and behold, the Department of Social and Family Affairs classifies this as a short-term payment.

Why am I ranting about this? It is because of the consequences for other benefits for those in receipt of short-term benefits. One benefit affected is fuel allowance but another has far more important consequences the Minister must consider. We all know the benefit of having young people go to college, namely, if they receive qualifications, they are likely to get employment and break out of the social welfare net. However, it is realised that it is difficult for a child to stay at college if his or her parents are on low income. Therefore, if a child of parents on social welfare goes to a higher education college, a top-up grant is available to help pay his or her way. The threshold for qualifying as a low income earner is close to €15,000. However, it is remarkable that a person on disability benefit who receives less than €15,000 — I know of a case where the person has a total income of €14,500 for the year — will not qualify for the top-up grant for his or her child at higher education because the Department classifies disability benefit as a short-term payment. That is wrong.

I am delighted the Minister, Deputy Brennan, is present because my experience of him has been that when he has seen genuine problems, he has put them right.

See this speech in context