Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)

As one who contributed to the debate on the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, I am well aware of the amount of work involved to get the current Bill to its present stage. I compliment all concerned in getting to this stage. The social welfare system has been ineffective in tackling high levels of poverty and inequality. In saying that, I acknowledge that some progress has been made in recent years. One of the main mechanisms for tackling poverty is the tax and welfare system, which has been the core of various budget policies over the years. I was recently informed by the Combat Poverty Agency that almost one quarter of the population, or nearly 900,000 people, still live in income poverty, which is a European measure. Income poverty is an income of less than €192 per week in 2005 values. Furthermore, 9% or 375,000 are living in constant poverty.

The Minister refers to relative poverty when it suits him. In my contribution to the Combat Poverty Agency submission on this year's budget to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, I stated that ordinary taxpayers tend to get confused when economists and people within the poverty areas give different statistics which basically turn people off. We need a uniform system of valuation and then attack the cause of poverty. This is our task as legislators. We must try to make everyone aware of the harsh realities of life for so many people. The Combat Poverty Agency made a very important contribution to this issue on the best way of addressing poverty within the welfare tax system. It is worthwhile putting on record the tax welfare allocations in the budgets of 2003 and 2005. In 2003, the total allocation was €716 million, with €530 million of that, or 74%, going on the social welfare allocation while income tax was €186 million, or26%. In 2005, the total allocation was €1,570 million, with €874 million, or 56% of the total, going on social welfare and €694 million, or 44%, on income tax. Between the two budgets, the total allocation went up by 119%, social welfare went up by 65% and the income tax element went up 273%. There is an element to these figures on how to deal with poverty on the basis of tax and welfare. On the basis of this, the Minister should give serious consideration to the distributive impact of the Combat Poverty Agency budget proposals for 2006 compared with the conventional 50:50 tax welfare budgets which have been the norm in recent years.

Our social welfare system is over reliant on the complex means testing which is burdensome and lacks transparency. We should rationalise and simplify means testing so that it is easier to administer and understand. We should reduce our reliance on means testing by extending coverage of the social insurance system. In this country, a job is unfortunately not a guaranteed route out of poverty. There is evidence of a growing pattern of working poverty with up to 157,000 people affected. We must enforce an adequate minimum wage and if necessary supplement the income of families in low paid employment through refundable tax credits. In addition the situation can be addressed by improvements in the family income supplement and secondary benefits such as medical cards and housing benefits.

The high cost of private rented accommodation is often crippling and the rent supplement system creates unacceptable unemployment traps. I appeal once again to the Minister to amend section 12 of the Social Welfare Act 2003 in respect of rent and mortgage supplements. That section amends section 179 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993 to extend explicitly this exclusion in respect of rent or mortgage interest supplement to the spouse of a person in remunerative work. The objective of the section is to restore the position that previously obtained; that rent or mortgage interest supplement would not ordinarily be paid to a household with full-time employment. Since Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats came to power, there has been a shortage of local authority housing on an annual basis. There are between 45,000 and 50,000 people on housing lists and they will be waiting for years. A house is an important element in the lives of married or cohabiting couples with children. If we try to get people to move from welfare to work, we must look at housing. People in my constituency, who are waiting years for a house from the local authority, can avail of the rent supplement. The average cost of rent in north Dublin ranges from €1,000 to €1,200 per month. The recipient of rent supplement can receive up to €275 per week. An unemployed person with a child can get €264.30 per week.

To take another example, what happens when people avail of a job opportunity? All Members accept that the way to deal with poverty is to encourage the unemployed to enter work or education. Currently, people might already have a family and a home before being offered the possibility of taking a job. On numerous occasions on the radio and elsewhere, the Minister has asked why so many Irish people are unemployed when people can come in from overseas and secure work. As many jobs currently pay the minimum rate, people earning €9 per hour will receive €351 per week. A family income supplement payment of €50, which is not the lowest possible rate, would bring them to €400 per week. Under this order from the Minister, such people cannot be provided with any rent supplement and consequently are required to pay €275 per week for a house. Who can live on €125 per week? The net effect is that people will tend to avoid stating that they live together, which has an adverse effect on their family unit and children. This must be considered.

Apart from getting a job, other people try to improve themselves through education. Currently the community employment scheme helps to provide that element of education. However, after a short period, a person who participates in a community employment scheme is no longer entitled to the full supplementary welfare allowance. While I do not expect such a person to be entitled to the full amount, I want to read an example into the record which reflects the experience of many people in community employment schemes:

I am on the council housing list. In the interim period while I await an offer of housing, I rent private accommodation for which the health board contributes €277 monthly. My rent is €1,000 monthly. I am a single parent with two children working part-time on a CE scheme since December 2004. Prior to this, the health board were contributing €736 monthly to my rent.

By furthering myself and finding work, I now find myself with a reduction in rent allowance of €459 monthly. My financial situation is extremely difficult and is causing me undue stress and worry which I am sure you will agree is not very conducive to raising my children, staying in employment and maintaining a household.

I spent two years prior to employment on a VTOS scheme training in computers, health and safety, communications etc. I now intend to commence a JEB diploma in ICT under my CE scheme. This I hope will enable me to gain good employment and hopefully, as my children get older, back to full-time work. I feel a certain discrimination having to struggle in this way as my situation is short term. In the past four months, since my rent allowance has been reduced, I have incurred debts of €2,000 due to the reduction.

The person in question has taken out credit union loans to keep going. People want to get back on their feet and out of poverty by participating in community employment schemes, educating themselves and preparing for employment. Something is wrong when under this directive, those people who are not accommodated in local authority housing will not receive any money.

What is the alternative? We will return to the vicious circle whereby people take stock of their position and question the potential benefit to themselves and their children of making the effort, because by so doing, they encounter a brick wall. They would be better off sitting at home in receipt of unemployment benefit without making any effort. That is the position and it was necessary to outline these examples of situations which are widespread. Possibly the Minister and his officials are not aware of this harsh reality and I ask him to do something about it.

Our social welfare system embodies outdated notions about "a woman's place" and is out of step with the reality of modern life. We can promote gender equality by abolishing the limitation rule and recognising the validity of choosing part-time employment which will enable women to access individual social welfare payments. The level of payment of maternity benefit and paid parental leave must be adequately addressed and the Labour Party is committed to this objective. Our policy document, Putting Children First, will be launched later today and will deal with parental leave.

The Minister has made various contributions and statements in respect of one parent families and how he proposes to tackle this issue. While there has been much talk and many media headlines, I am disappointed that we still await his detailed proposals. The one parent family payment traps lone parents in unemployment or underemployment and creates a barrier to the formation of stable relationships. We must reform the social welfare system so that all qualifying adults receive an individual payment by exempting those with parental obligations from seeking employment, should they so choose.

In a statement issued recently by the Minister, he mentioned the issue of child poverty and his plans in this regard. I look forward to hearing his detailed proposals. Some 23% of our children live in income poverty while 15% live in constant poverty, that is, are deprived of basic necessities. The possibility of merging the child dependent allowance and family income supplement into a new child benefit supplement to enable better targeting and support of families in employment should be examined.

People with disabilities and their carers are not given the support they deserve. I support the concept which has been put forward by various groups dealing with poverty of the provision, on a universal needs basis, of a cost of disability payment to cover equipment, mobility, communication and additional hidden costs. As a member of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs I was delighted when, under the chairmanship of my colleague, Deputy Penrose, it produced a document on carers. Given the contribution carers have made on a voluntary basis to the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people being cared for through the years, it is unacceptable that only 15% of carers qualify for carer's allowance.

Representations have been made by many people to all Members regarding the living alone allowance, which must be addressed. I cannot see a reference in the Bill to deserted wives' benefit. There are 300 or 400 people still in receipt of this benefit. It is of no use to say it was incorporated in other legislation as there is no reference, good, bad or indifferent, in this Bill. Will the Minister check this matter for me? If there is a reference he can correct me but the Bill should be amended to incorporate this category. I look forward to further debate on Report Stage.

See this speech in context