Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

Is cúis áthais dom deis a fháil labhairt ar chúrsaí leasa shóisialaigh. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an tAire i láthair. The background to the social welfare provisions in the budget and the legislation arising from it must be put in context following the fanfare indicating the budget was going to deal with child care and resolve many problems faced by people, particularly parents. In 2005, disability issues were the hook on which the Government hung the budget, and in 2004, decentralisation was the issue. We cannot state that any of these issues have been resolved or that there has been a universal welcome. That is quite ironic given the reaction to decentralisation in particular, and the manner in which disability groups have continued to lobby for a rights-based approach to the issues that need to be addressed. There was further lobbying for this budget by disability groups which felt they were not getting the core funding required to lift them out of dependency and community employment schemes. That is still an outstanding issue.

I appreciate the Government has endeavoured to raise in general the payments being made and to introduce some other measures, particularly in the area of child care. This was an effort to get the main pressure off its back with regard to these issues. However, the wider issue that should be borne in mind is that personal debt is rising. The Government has a responsibility to come to terms with this and address the matter. All the social welfare measures in the world are not going to relieve problems if personal debt is growing and outstripping those increases.

I realise the Government is not in a position to provide a nanny state and tell people not to get into debt. The matter must be addressed when the Government, on the one hand, is stating that balance of payments are in a healthy position nationally, while at the same time the ratio of household credit to disposable income is estimated to increase from approximately 112% of disposable income at the end of 2004 to 133% at the end of 2005.

In the national picture, the Government is stating it has everything in order. I dispute this but I will not get into too much detail as we are dealing with social welfare. However, for every €1 of disposable income, the average person will owe €1.33. Over the next three years the Central Bank expects €1.60 to be owed for every €1 of disposable income. There is a trend against which social welfare payments must be taken into account. In contrast, ten years ago Irish people owed just 48 cent for every €1 of income after tax. This indicates some of the difficulty that is faced by the Government. When it considers this, it may wonder why there is not a fulsome response from all concerned despite the budget being so generous. One of the main criticisms of social welfare payments and the child care package is that it was so general and across the board in a society which is very divided. In European and world terms we have a reputation, or perhaps infamy, for being a divided society.

The reaction of Barnardos is that the budget does not reflect the reality of bringing up children. The National Women's Council has stated its disappointment that the new child care supplement is not index linked. ICTU, with tongue slightly in cheek, has stated it was underwhelmed. IBEC stated the measures do not focus enough on making child care affordable for parents working outside the home. The Children's Rights Alliance is concerned about the lack of focus on quality child care and will look closely to ensure that children's rights are central to the roll out of the child care programme. The Combat Poverty Agency stated its concern that child dependant allowances, which they hoped would be targeted at the poorest children in the State, remain frozen. The Simon Community voiced its concern that the Government did not prioritise housing, although I know that is beyond the Minister's brief. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul stated its disappointment at the lack of targeted payments for poor families. The One Parent Exchange and Network had a similar response.

In general there is a pattern running through many of the reactions from people who are at the coal face, dealing with various disadvantaged groups and people in society. They are stating that wealthy families that could easily go without will be receiving child care and child benefit payments of almost €2,550 per child next year, while families at serious risk of poverty receive the same amount. They believe the Government should have linked payments to earnings far more decisively.

One could ask why, and the Minister might have his own answer. There is an impression that a large pot of money was to be spread out as much as possible with a view to giving everybody something so they might feel they were being looked after. It is a sad fact that many of the poorest people in our society do not vote. I wonder if there was some motivation in that regard. Perhaps that is something which will change in the next election, and it certainly needs to change for democracy to be seen as effective.

The social welfare system is so complex that problems in administration are quite likely, whatever about sums of money involved. I have an example of a conscientious landlord who contacted me. He provided accommodation for people who were on rent supplement, for example. The sum involved would be €737 per month. However, last June that landlord found he was to sell the house being rented. He gave notice to his tenants, who departed and got other rented accommodation. The landlord let the social welfare authorities know he was no longer renting the property. However, payments were still being received three months later. He rang me to find out who he could give the money back to, as money which he was not entitled to was being sent to him. The person in question knew he was not entitled to the money but it was arriving for him without any questions being asked.

There is a need to cross-reference, check and put in place balances that will ensure that not only is the money given to those with greatest need, but that it is given in a way that is above board and will not tempt people to hold on to it if they are not entitled to it. This was the case outlined above. Has the Minister come across this before and has he advice on the matter? I also ask how the checks and balances can be put in place, given that much money is being paid out. It appears from time to time that such money is paid out in error. It is not helping those with the greatest need if the Government is claiming that a certain amount of money is being spent, when it is not being spent in a targeted or correct way.

Tá litir agam mar gheall ar mhná den chuid is mó atá gan phinsean. Tá mé ag ceapadh go bhfuil fadhb ansin agus gur cheart don Aire díriú uirthi. Tá fear ag scríobh chugam mar gheall ar ghrúpa — nach mór é— de mhná atá in aois an phinsin ach nach bhfaigheann pinsean ar bith. Deir an fear seo liom:

In ainneoin Alt 41.2.1° de Bhunreacht na hÉireann tá na mílte ban atá 70 bliain d'aois nó breis agus 70 bliain d'aois lonnaithe ar fud na Poblachta gan phingin rua de phinsean ón Stát. Seanmhná is ea iad seo a streachlaíonn leis an saol gan mhaoin, gan sealúchas, gan phinsean dá gcuid féin — iad ag brath ar dhaoine eile dá gcothú.

Ar meán d'oibrigh na mná seo 124 míle uair i rith a saol: iad i mbun tí agus ag tógáil clainne.

In Alt 41.2.1° den Bhunreacht deirtear:

[A]dmhaíonn an Stát go dtugann an bhean don Stát, trína saol sa teaghlach, cúnamh nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dá éagmais.

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

Measaim nár mhiste d'aon Rialtas sóisialach liúntas beag, pearsanta seachtainiúil a bhronnadh ar gach bean nach bhfuil pinsean á fháil aici agus atá 70 bliain d'aois nó níos mó.

Is mór a chuirfeadh sé lena neamhspleáchas, lena gcaighdeán maireachtála agus lena ndínit.

Dealraíonn sé nach eol don CSO cruinnuimhir na mban i gceist, i.e. uimhir na mban nach raibh acmhainn don teaghlach [leathchoróin, mar a dúirt daoine eile] á n-íoc acu go deonach ón mbliain 1961 AD amach (tuigim go bhfuair thart ar 87% de mhná na hÉireann in aois a 70 nó 70+ pinsean sa bhliain 2003).

Ag cur san áireamh go bhfuil Éire ar cheann de na tíortha is saibhre ar domhan anois, tá súil agam go mbeidh tú sásta brú a chur ar an Rialtas líon na mban i gceist a nochtadh don bhliain reatha agus liúntas pearsanta caoi a bhronnadh orthu mar cheart!

Seans gur féidir leis an Aire a rá go bhfuil plean ag an Rialtais díriú ar an gceist seo. It is very obvious that, for all the complexity and cross-referencing that goes on in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, there is a group of people that falls through the cracks because they have worked to raise a family and now, aged 70 years or more, are not entitled to any pension. This is shameful. They may have a spouse on whom they depend but that is not always the case.

It is strange that the Central Statistics Office does not have accurate figures. These people are out of the Government's sight and mind. I will give the Minister more information about this after the debate, if he needs it. This issue points again to the need to achieve a balance between the complexity of the system and its simplification so that it does not give rise to such injustices.

Fr. Seán Healy has made presentations to Fianna Fáil on many different issues, including probably the principle of refundable tax credits and the more developed system of a guaranteed basic income. Without going that far, it is unjust that some people receive tax breaks and others receive nothing because they are not in a workplace where they receive pay. A refundable tax credit could deal with that.

Has the Minister given time and thought to refundable tax credits and brought the idea to the attention of his colleagues in Government, particularly the Minister for Finance? If so has there been any progress on that proposal? Meanwhile, I urge the Minister to take on board the injustice of the case I cited and the clear but unintentional abuse of the system whereby rent supplements are paid where there is no need, for example, if there is no tenant in the house. I would like the Minister to address these issues when summing up the debate.

See this speech in context