Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I compliment Deputy O'Connor for being so optimistic and generating a feel good factor. However, one issue that immediately comes to mind is that the number of people depending on social welfare for housing rent has not gone down. These people are not as enthused about the situation. Other matters that come to mind do not necessarily relate to social welfare. Any given Friday, one can park for as long as one likes on the M50 for free. However, one has to pay a toll to get out of it. We will have to grease the Dublin Port tunnel to get the heavier vehicles through. Letting the air out of their tyres is not an option. There are other issues such as the ballot boxes that do not work with huge cost to the unfortunate taxpayer. The overruns on every single project come to mind. Crime is at an all-time high with shootings, killings and stabbings every day and night. The 2,000 gardaí that were supposed to come on stream never appeared. They are invisible like the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The postal service is in disarray. To cap it all Ireland, a leading country in modern cutting edge technology, is now being passed by every other developing country. According to an OECD report we are 19th out of 22 in the development of broadband technology. At this rate we will soon be last. We are working on it. I compliment all on the other side of the House for generating optimism in the face of all the problems. To be optimistic in that context is like a man whistling in the dark to allay his fears.

Whether we like it or not international experts have deemed us one of the wealthiest countries in the world. One of the things expected of a wealthy country is that in an exemplary way it should look after those who depend on social services. We should set an example not only to European countries but to all countries. I am not sure we are doing that.

A small proportion of carers receive payment at present. We should recognise that carers take the place of nurses, doctors or hospital attendants. Because of today's employment climate where everybody wants to work or is forced to because they have a mortgage, carers now fulfil an unprecedented role by taking the place of an institution such as a hospital and the doctors, nurses and medical attendants who work in it. They save a considerable and quantifiable amount of money for the State. Given the problems we have with bed spaces in our hospitals and nursing homes, it is long past the time for the Minister to look at the issue with a view to increasing the number of people who will qualify for carer's allowance. Carers care not just for elderly people but for children and people with special needs. The greater the degree of care required the greater the saving to the State by these carers being in position. There has been insufficient investigation of the full extent of the alleviation of costs to the Exchequer due to carers.

I have dealt with rent support on many occasions. We heard the argument last year and the year before that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is responsible for housing, while the Department of Social and Family Affairs is responsible for welfare payments. We started to describe public authority housing as social housing and that is a grand name to give it. The way it works is that there are now considerable numbers of people who are trapped in so-called social housing, namely rent supported housing. They cannot leave the rent supported housing, because if they do and they go to work they will be saddled with a very high rent that their salaries will be insufficient to meet. As a result they remain in a poverty trap indefinitely, in rented accommodation, in some cases paying €1,300 to €1,400 per month, depending on the size of the family.

In recent times an arbitrary attitude has emerged among people who assess rent support entitlements. I have dealt with several cases and I do not wish to personalise them at this stage, but I warn that I will if I must. I do not accept that somebody should suffer hardship because of the attitude of a person in a position of control and authority. I will not accept abuse of authority and I stand four square behind the people who have become victims of it. Following some of these arbitrary decisions the response has been that applicants can appeal. Appeal to whom? The same people who made the decision in the first place? I am aware that rent support is administered by the Department of Health and Children on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs but it would stand the Minister in good stead if he examined what these people are doing. It is particularly noticeable in the case of a person who applies for rent support for the first time. It almost seems that somebody makes an arbitrary decision that the applicant is late and will have to go on a very long list. I will give the Minister details of that type of thing any time he wishes.

There is a poverty trap there. People who wish to work cannot get a local authority house because the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not providing them and will not for the foreseeable future. They are stuck whether they like it or not. Without exception, single mothers want to work to improve their circumstances and their education. I will give an example which is not an isolated case. In recent weeks a woman with a baby wanted to go back to college. She ought to qualify for rent support while she is at college as she would if she stayed at home and depended on social welfare for the rest of her life. However, she wants to better herself, get a degree and improve her contribution to society. What is she told? She is told she cannot get rent support. This is incorrect, as I know from past experience, but to get the message through the bureaucracy in the Department of Health and Children and the Health Service Executive which carry out the function on behalf of the Department of Social Family Affairs is a virtual impossibility. Experts emerge every few minutes who seem to know more than the people who have been involved for years.

I urge the Minister to look at what is happening. A person has the option to improve by getting an education to become self-sufficient or to do nothing. They should be not be penalised for wanting to improve. It does not cost the Exchequer any more. It costs the Exchequer exactly the same in both cases. What is the difference between having a young mother on one parent family payment and rent support and a young mother on back to education allowance and rent support? Which is the better of the two from the point of view of the State? There is no doubt as to the answer.

Certain Departments are responsible for the collection of PAYE and PRSI contributions. That has always been the case. A number of cases have recently come to my attention where people who had applied for benefits were refused because their contributions had not been paid. They were told they should contact their employer. They do not have to contact their employer. They only have to contact the Department of Social and Family Affairs because they are entitled to their payments whether or not their employer has paid. It is for the Department to pursue those contributions. Recently that has happened a number of times but it should not happen. It is an established fact for as long as I can remember that if somebody is in contribution-related employment and becomes ill he or she is entitled to benefits. The fact that contributions have not been paid is another issue for another agent. I would be grateful if the Minister examined the issue, which has been referred to by Deputy Paul McGrath already. It is more serious than we have been led to believe.

Daft decisions come around every so often, and although I will not go into too much detail, the Minister and his officials will probably know some of the issues I am thinking of. Occasionally a decision is made that is based on stupidity with nothing to back it up. I am thinking of the equality decision made some years ago that would have cost €9 million at most if paid in the first instance. It cost €300 million by the time it was finished because somebody failed to make the correct decision at the right time. The case went through the courts here and the European courts, costing much money. If a decision does not appear to stand up, it should be examined.

All Ministers have taken the attitude in recent times that they do not have a function in a particular matter. That is a dangerous phrase, the Minister is in some way responsible for any legislation that is approved in this House as long as his party is in power. The Minister should ignore people telling him that he has no function in a matter as he knows differently. Although the Minister might not be able to intervene directly he has to be able to stand over decisions that are made. He should be able to say to anyone making a decision that it must be in accordance with the law and policy. My advice to the Minister is to keep an eye on such matters.

Child care and child benefit are related issues. Every once in a while I get a chill in my spine when I hear statements about child benefit being biased in one direction or another. Mothers of any age anywhere in the country, regardless of economic or social background or income, feel that the small recognition given by child benefit is welcome. A time comes around every so often, around the time of the budget, when wise guys — and they are usually guys — get together and argue that the burden of child benefit should be shifted. The Minister should not entertain such an idea. It would be a sad day if he did, but there would be many sad days afterwards also.

I agree with women who state that as they all gave birth to children in the same fashion, they should be entitled to some small recognition as a result. This is not merely monetary compensation but a well-meaning gesture from the State. Child benefit should remain and should be escalated considerably to ensure that provision is made for child care also. I am not affected by child care anymore but we all have to go through that phase, and the newer generation in the House will experience it. When their children are small, people will have their own opinion on how best to apply child care policy. This is now a big issue and is getting bigger, as everybody in the household must work or people will starve or be unable to pay their large mortgage. In some cases, child care costs are as high as the mortgage and this area needs to be examinated and regulated. The increasing of child benefit is as fair a means as possible of doing this, in conjunction with the availability of pre-school child care and crèche facilities.

Child care facilities should be in residential areas rather than three or four miles away. They should be at the centre of a residential area, so that when an estate of houses is opened a child care facility is available for every 30 or 40 houses. All the families would be the same age at the same time. However, if planning permission is sought for such a venture it is refused automatically. This type of situation is a paradox. Provision should be made in the design of estates to give the chance to incorporate a single child care unit in the development as long as it does not stand out from the rest of the plan. It could be placed in the estate with a design similar to an ordinary dwelling house, for example. Action needs to be taken on this issue at an early date.

Non-nationals are in many cases being quite harshly treated by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

See this speech in context