Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill 2005. I compliment the Minister on the various improvements he has made through the Bill on foot of the budget. We must acknowledge that he has had available to him the greatest amount of money available to a Minister in his position in the history of the State. There was a surplus of nearly €2 billion when the Minister for Finance set about preparing his budget. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs had a number of issues to deal with and in this context he must be complimented.

Serious consideration must be given to people living in poverty. Some 17% are in this category, which highlights the emergence of the working poor. It is important that we consider some of the Minister's statements on the budget and this Bill regarding child poverty. The reality is that between 60,000 and 120,000 children are affected in some way by poverty which could blight their lives and sow the seeds for a serious lack of labour development. The Minister referred to this. On the problems faced by lone parents, he said the 86,000 lone parents and their children, numbering up to 150,000, are especially vulnerable and at high risk of poverty.

We must return to the issue of pensions. Pensioners need to have enough money to live on when they finish their working lives. While not much credence was given to this in the Bill, I look forward to discussing and dealing with it in the future.

The fuel allowance has been increased to €14 but the basic fuel allowance for senior citizens is €9 per week and has not been increased since 2002. As practising politicians, we know the reality that domestic electricity prices have increased by nearly 44% since 2002 and that heating oil is approximately 20% more expensive now than it was this time last year. The current allowance barely covers the cost of a small bag of coal which would heat a house for two or three days per week at most. This must be borne in mind. It is in the context of the increases in energy costs that we must consider the increase in the fuel allowance. I am disappointed it has not been doubled. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this.

Let me deal with the issue of rent allowance and the need to afford people the opportunity to make the transition from welfare to work. While dealing with the Social Welfare Bill 2004 and the recent consolidation Bill in the House, I brought this to the attention of the Minister. He has endeavoured to take on board, where practical, and amend, where necessary, many of the suggestions we made on this side of the House, but if we are truly to afford people the opportunity to leave the social welfare system for work, we must acknowledge one of the main problems that exists in society, namely, the lack of housing. The supplementary welfare allowance, which afforded people in need of housing an opportunity to obtain rent supplement, was devastated by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Coughlan, as part of her vicious 16 cuts. There have been slight amendments to the allowance but they do not go far enough.

In the past people tended to be married but other forms of relationship now exist. This needs to be acknowledged. While it has been referred to time and again by the Minister, he might indicate to the House when he envisages a detailed response from the Department to deal with the issue. As I stated previously, people working full-time but living on low income are ineligible for a rent supplement at a time when fewer and fewer social houses are being built by local authorities. This creates a major problem. Couples will separate and others will claim they are not living together when they are only doing so because if they acknowledge the true position, their rent supplement will be taken away. It is not good enough. The issue must be dealt with and I hope the Minister will consider it in a positive manner.

I referred to deserted wife's benefit in the context of the consolidation Bill. I was pleased that the Minister had acknowledged the anomalies with regard to entitlement and given a commitment to deal with them. Section 10 of the Bill makes reference to the status quo. I hope it will enable the Minister to make changes by regulation. However, as an anomaly arises, I intend to propose a Report Stage amendment for the Minister's consideration. The earnings bands for deserted wife's benefit were introduced in 1992 when the full personal rate was £60.50 per week. The bands were never changed, even following the changeover to the euro. The reduced rates of payment were set at 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% of the full rate. This has led to an anomaly whereby, as a person crosses over an earnings threshold, she loses more than she gains. The loss increases with each budget.

The current position following the 2006 budget for the aggregate of reckonable income and reckonable earnings is as follows. For earnings below €12,698, which would qualify one for the full rate, the weekly rate in 2005 was €154.30. The weekly rate in 2006 will be €171.30. Where earnings exceed €12,698 but do not exceed €13,968, the weekly rate in 2005 was €123.40. The weekly rate in 2006 will be €137. Where earnings exceed €13,968 but do not exceed €15,237, the weekly rate in 2005 was €92.60. The weekly rate in 2006 will be €102.80. Where earnings exceed €15,237 but do not exceed €16,507, the weekly rate in 2005 is €61.70. The weekly rate in 2006 will be €68.50. Where earnings exceed €16,507 but do not exceed €17,777, the weekly rate in 2005 was €30.90. The weekly rate in 2006 will be €34.30. Therefore, following the 2006 budget, for each €1,270 gross a woman earns per annum, her payment is cut by approximately €1,784 per annum. It might be argued that assurances given to recipients in 1992 that their existing entitlements would be preserved — that was the commitment given — would favour indexing of the bands in line with the consumer price index.

The Minister might, at least, as an interim measure to eliminate these anomalies, consider the following changes to the bands. Where earnings are below €15,000, which would qualify one for the full rate, the weekly rate should be €171.30. Where earnings exceed €15,000 but do not exceed €18,000, the weekly rate should be €137. Where earnings exceed €18,000 but do not exceed €21,000, the weekly rate should be €102.80. Where earnings exceed €21,000 but do not exceed €24,000, the weekly rate should be €68.50. Where earnings exceed €24,000 but do not exceed €27,000, the weekly rate should be €34.30. This minor measure, while eliminating anomalies in the short term, would still not restore deserted wife's benefit recipients to the position that obtained in 1992 as it does not take into account the rate of inflation. As the numbers in receipt of this payment are small and the number with earnings smaller, the Minister might consider abolishing the earnings bands altogether. The payment comes from the social insurance fund. The Minister suggested that if I had any ideas in this regard, I should express them and I have done so.

Some of my colleagues brought a further anomaly to my attention. They were supported by an e-mail I received last week with the following suggestion for deserted wife's benefit. Given the increase in carer's benefit, could a deserted wife's benefit recipient change to carer's benefit for a few years and then return to deserted wife's benefit when the person being cared for dies or needs nursing home care? At present this option is not available. A difficulty arises where a woman changes from deserted wife's benefit to carer's benefit while looking after a person in need of care. When the person receiving care dies, where does the carer stand with regard to her benefit? I acknowledge that slight improvements for carers have been introduced in the Bill. I support the welcome increase in the respite care grant, which was increased by €200 from €1,000.

In summing up the Minister may be able to indicate how many additional carers will be in receipt of the carer's allowance as a result of the changes. The Carers Association indicated that perhaps an extra couple of hundred will be in receipt of the carer's allowance. Considering the number of people who have provided invaluable work and service to look after loved ones, a specific commitment of the all-party committee under the chairmanship of my colleague, Deputy Penrose, in bringing out the report on carers, was to press for the abolition of the means test for carer's allowance.

Notwithstanding the actions of the Minister and some of his Government colleagues, there is a specific commitment as far as the Labour Party is concerned. If and when our party gets back into Government after the next election, we will bring about a substantial change of the mind set that seems to exist within the Department and with various Ministers.

See this speech in context