Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

I have only six minutes, so I am going to try to talk very quickly. I have much else to say but I cannot, because of time constraints. A couple of years ago I was castigated for describing the Government's treatment in terms of social welfare and pension payments for people living in disadvantaged areas as a "urination", for which I got a rap on the knuckles. Having looked at matters over the years, I was too soft. I should have said that people were being pissed on by this Government and I have no regrets for saying that.

There is a Celtic tiger that is gorging selfishly on the largesse it has been fed and this time I will not use such terms. However, the gorging is creating the few scraps that are being divvied out to those less well off and people are supposed to feel grateful. In setting that context, I welcome some of the increases that relate to old age benefit, maternity benefit and carer's allowance. They are nowhere near enough, however, to tackle the poverty gap.

The Minister has been quoted as stating that education is the way out of poverty. In terms of collective responsibility, while the small increases are welcome, the Department of Education and Science's refusal to properly fund the National Educational Welfare Board and the lack of an adequate school meals system throughout the country, is leading to children leaving school too early to ever meet the income requirements they will need, thus putting pressure — from a PD perspective — on the social welfare system. The only way to bypass that is to invest in breaking the cycle at an early stage. The National Educational Welfare Board is the only body with the statutory obligation to do that and it is not getting the funding. While a few euro may be divvied out here and there the root causes will not be tackled unless an holistic approach is taken on an interdepartmental basis.

Because of time constraints I can only allude to some aspects of this legislation. In general, I welcome sections 2 and 3. The carer's allowance, however, is still not enough. More needs to be done as regards the issue of paid respite care.

I have a query as regards pensions. Where a pensioner has a spouse who is in receipt of a pension, he or she is not entitled to a contributory pension and must depend on a partner. Constituents in this position tell me they need to be recognised and given dignity in their own right even if they are only entitled to half a pension. Perhaps the Minister might look at this. As regards maternity benefit, constituents have also asked me why, for example, the amendments consequential on the extension of paid maternity leave by four weeks will take effect in March 2006, given that the increase to 8% in reckonable weekly earnings will come on stream from 1 January. People who are due to take maternity leave shortly are concerned that they will not qualify because of the March 2006 start date. Perhaps the Minister might clarify this and have some type of transition period.

I am quite critical of the supplementary welfare allowance because even as regards people working on CE schemes, as is mentioned in the legislation, an amount over the €60 gross income from earnings is disregarded. In section 12 there is an improvement, indicating that half the gross earnings between €60 and €90 may be disregarded. If the Minister wants to have any effect and allow people to do a little part-time work, he should have taken the whole amount up to €90. As the EU survey on income and living conditions shows, almost one fifth of the population is at risk of poverty. The people most at risk are lone parents. They have an obligation to look after their children but might want to better themselves by doing CE schemes, engaging in part-time work to top up income etc. Because of the half gross weekly earnings stricture of between €60 and €90 they will not be helped much. They should be able to get a leg up to enable them to get out of the poverty trap entirely, becoming taxpayers over a period of time.

I also want to comment as regards the closure of social welfare offices. An example quite close to Leinster House is Oisín House in Pearse Street, which deals with everything apart from unemployment benefit. People go to these types of offices who, for social or stigma reasons, will not enter an unemployment benefit office. Staff there have ready access to people's data. Elderly people in particular can ask about their situation and get a one-to-one personal interface. This is in sharp contrast to telephoning an office in Sligo, which might have 100 or 200 people, but will not provide the one-to-one service that vulnerable people need. I would like the Minister to comment in his final contribution on how many of the local offices will be closed. Does he recognise the value of having local offices for people to drop into?

Finally, I raise the issue of the fuel allowance. As my colleagues, Deputies Boyle, Sargent and others have pointed out, globally fuel prices will continue to rise. We could even have shortages eventually. I will not go into that issue except to comment that the Government tax strategy appears to be to let the taxpayer pay through carbon trading rather than to implement the full whack of fuel price increases to encourage efficiency. By lowering taxes on income and making allowances payable to people on unemployment benefit through refundable tax credits, a rise in fuel could be sanctioned that would encourage everybody to be more efficient in its use. At the same time a proper fuel allowance could be provided for the elderly and disadvantaged. Even if nothing is done about the carbon trading issue, the doubling of the current fuel allowance is derisory in terms of the price increases that have occurred. I ask that something be done in next year's budget in that regard because fuel prices will continue on an upward spiral. Unless we give our elderly people some type of solace for the cold winters that lie ahead, the position will continue to worsen.

See this speech in context