David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister's officials for giving us a briefing today. That is always useful, welcome and informative. However, I am sure the Minister is aware from previous comments that we on this side of the House are not pleased with the very short lead-in time we have had to study the Bill. I am informed this is not the Minister's fault, but if he is looking forward to a constructive debate, which is the style of those on this side of the House, particularly from Deputies Penrose, Boyle, me and others, it is difficult to be constructive when you have very little time to study what is put before you.

The Bill was published at lunch time yesterday. Given that I had other commitments today and needed to travel here, it was quite difficult to go through the Bill in any detail and to do it the justice it probably deserves. In future, will the Minister ensure we get a couple of days at least to study Bills and get advice on them to have a constructive debate on important matters, as the Minister has suggested? If the Government insists on behaving in this way, it is unfair to us and on the people we represent. As others said, the Government is treating Members of the House with contempt if it does not give us time to study important legislation such as this, legislation on which we want to be positive and constructive. I feel strongly about this matter. From the Minister's comments, it seems he agrees. This is not the way to do business. It is indefensible and I urge that it does not happen again.

I apologise to the House for not being able to make as detailed a contribution as I would like as I did not have sufficient time to prepare. There are good measures in this Bill and I welcome them. Increases voted by the Oireachtas and made available by the Government to people in need are extremely welcome. In this day and age when so many resources are available to us, it is only right that we do what we can to improve the lot of everybody.

I took note of a number of comments in the Minister's speech. He stated: "As I have stated many times in this House, payments alone will not solve our social problems." I agree with that. Part of the Minister's conclusion was folksy and reminded me of Ronald Reagan speak. He stated:

To achieve the changes in social policy that reflect the needs of the Ireland of the 21st century will call for courageous reforms. The window of opportunity is there. . . .

It is fair that the names of schemes will be changed by the Bill but it is not what one would call courageous reform. The Bill does not indicate what the Minister means by courageous reforms.

I welcome the increase in payments, which are badly needed. The Combat Poverty Agency maintains "relative to our EU counterparts, Ireland has among the lowest levels of social expenditure as a proportion of national income." It also maintains that Ireland spends relatively small sums in areas such as old age expenditure and family services. It states: "Social expenditure should be increased where appropriate over the coming years to rectify the current deficits."

Before entering the House today, Deputy Penrose and I attended the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, appearing before which was Dr. Maureen Gaffney. We needed to abandon the committee and come here because this Bill was introduced so urgently and we did not get a chance to go through business as we would have liked. Dr. Gaffney spoke about the need for a totally new paradigm and way of thinking where older people are concerned. The NESF's report on the care of older people includes some courageous ideas but, unfortunately, I do not see them reflected in this Bill. It has no ground-breaking measures.

The Minister has talked for a long time about courageous ideas but we have not seen them. He keeps referring to the issue of child poverty, but not much is happening. For example, in his budget speech in December 2004, the Minister announced the development of a targeted payment based on need to help combat child poverty. He stated: "As part of the Sustaining Progress special initiative on ending child poverty, the National Economic and Social Council has been asked to undertake an in-depth examination of child income support arrangements with a view to developing a second tier payment targeted at low income families which, by combining family income supplement and CDAs, would have a neutral impact on employment options." We have still not seen this payment.

In other statements on the second tier payment, the Minister pondered — he is good at pondering — the possibility of including the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. However, as this was increased in this year's budget, it appears the Minister is no longer pondering the matter. We do not know. Despite referring to the new second tier payment at numerous stages in speeches and interviews with the media throughout 2005, the Minister has taken no action to introduce it.

In response to Questions Nos. 42, 55 and 67 on 9 February 2006 the Minister stated:

While the solutions to the problem of child poverty cover a wide range of measures, including income supports and services, I am committed to reviewing the role of child income supports in this regard. This includes examining the feasibility of merging the family income supplement and child dependant allowance into a second tier child income support taking account of an examination being carried out in this area by the National Economic and Social Council [NESC].

The NESC is currently considering its draft report and I look forward to receiving a finalised report which will be of significant assistance in informing the future direction of child income support policy.

I draw the attention of the House to what the Combat Poverty Agency states in its submission on a new national partnership agreement. It suggests significant improvements in the levels of support for second tier, means-tested child income support with a recommended medium-term move towards an employment neutral child benefit supplement to replace child dependant allowance and family income supplement.

The Minister has stated that child poverty is an unacceptable blemish on modern society. Such language is too mild as child poverty in this era is a disgrace. Some suggest 150,000 children live in poverty while other measures suggest up to 350,000 children are at risk of poverty. We must see some imaginative changes to tackle this matter. Time is running out as this Bill represents the last opportunity this year. It would be useful if the Minister implemented ground-breaking measures to tackle child poverty. We need joined-up government and the Minister is correct in stating that courageous moves are needed. As yet we have not seen them and the window of opportunity, to which the Minister referred, is closing very quickly.

I welcome the improvements to several schemes. For many constituents social welfare benefits are like a maze. The ordinary person finds it difficult to understand his or her entitlements. Two low-income families have come to my attention who did not know of the existence of the family income supplement, despite being entitled to receive it. These families approached me because they were in dire straits. One man with a low income was not certain if he was entitled to a medical card. His child, who had not been able to breathe, spent four nights in hospital and he received a bill of €60 per night. He was under pressure as he could not pay the money on his low income. After assessing his income, I informed him he was entitled to a medical card and the family income supplement. He was very pleased when I told him that if he applied for the family income supplement, he would receive it.

It is incumbent on the Government to ensure people entitled to and in need of these supports are aware of them and receive assistance in accessing them. Application forms and methods of application should be made as simple as possible. The concept of the working poor and work poor households is coming to the fore. An increasing number of families can be classified in this way, highlighting the increasing inequality in Ireland. We referred to this during Question Time recently.

The Combat Poverty Agency informs us that indirect taxation accounts for 50% of Exchequer revenue and is a more dominant form of taxation. Such taxes are generally regressive, hitting the poor the hardest, and must be addressed. Politicians see increasing numbers of people at clinics, some of whom must be referred to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul as there is no other option if people cannot buy food for their children. With so much money available, this should not be happening.

I challenge the Minister to set a target to eliminate consistent poverty. We could all work to ensure that by 2010, consistent poverty would be eliminated in this country. This objective can be achieved and the Minister could announce his intention to do this in his next press release.

The Minister has said we should not only pay out money but should also set targets in education, health, housing, employment and community. It was a mistake to separate responsibility for the community from the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. Family and community are inextricably linked and assigning responsibility for these areas to two Departments was a mistake. According to the Combat Poverty Agency, families and communities are central to tackling the cumulative and inter-generational dimensions of poverty, and a proactive policy supporting families and community development can contribute to this. It is more difficult to address this if the responsibility is divided between two Departments.

I referred to those living in poverty despite being in employment. The Combat Poverty Agency states that the rate of in-work poverty has doubled to 9%, affecting 157,000 people, the second largest market category after those with home duties and greater than those in poverty who are unemployed and ill. In New Zealand, a payment similar to the family income supplement has an uptake of 92% compared with 30-40% in Ireland. Much work must be done to increase this figure.

It is believed that 6.8% of the population or 270,000 people live in consistent poverty. Groups at high risk of poverty include children, adults and children in lone parent households. The issue of lone parents has been discussed on many occasions in this House and the Minister has referred to the residency clause. I refer to a family comprising two parents and two children aged three years and four months. All four live in one room of the children's grandmother's house. If the husband were to move out, the family would be eligible to receive the one-parent family payment but they do not wish to do so. There is pressure on the family to separate as the husband has a low income job. The temptation is to draw down the one-parent family supplement and pretend the parents have separated, which brings terrible pressure on a family. The Minister has referred to such cases and this area must be examined, with the Minister bringing forward courageous and imaginative ideas to deal with this problem. I am sure colleagues on all sides of the House have examples of this situation.

I welcome the changes the Bill brings to carer's benefit and carer's leave. It increases the time limit for both from 15 months to two years. I also welcome the increase in the number of hours a carer can work from ten to 15. However, this should rise to 18 hours to reflect the average part-time job of half the full working week of 39 or 40 hours.

Regarding the issue of improving community care services for older people in particular, the House is agreed that a key part of a care strategy is to allow as many elderly people as possible to remain in home-based community care. At this afternoon's meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, chairperson, Dr. Gaffney, put forward models that the NESF has identified in other countries, particularly in the Netherlands.

A number of us travelled to Denmark recently to examine care for older people there. They are way ahead of us. They stopped building nursing homes in 1997 because home care is better. The extent of support available there means that approximately 92% of older people die in their own homes. Home care visits take place as often as necessary. It was also stated by Dr. Gaffney that in the long run it is less expensive for the State to provide community and home care for people than it is to provide nursing home and institutional care. The State makes a profit by doing the right thing.

We provide an increasing number of tax incentives to build nursing homes. In Denmark, they stopped building nursing homes. When a person can no longer stay in his or her own home, he or she moves into a type of sheltered accommodation apartment. We visited some of them. We were not allowed into the apartment because it was the private residence of an older person who had his or her own possessions and familiar objects.

It was also stated at the committee meeting that if an older person can be sustained, encouraged and helped to live in his or her environment for as long as possible, that person will maintain both physical and mental health for longer. The danger is that older people will decline if they become dependent, and that is revealing. If any of us visit nursing homes, we see that people there are in decline. They are dependent and lose their get up and go, so to speak. We are told that we will all live longer so it is incumbent on us to ensure that the models in place now will be best for all of us. We have a vested interest in doing the right thing.

I suggest there is an anomaly and contradiction in Government policy. We build nursing homes, which in many cases are institutions and impersonal. We also state that we should have community and home support. We must make up our minds as to which way we want to go. We are not giving anything like the level of support necessary to community and home-based care. Improving family care services for older people is important and we should continue it.

I agree with the Minister on changing the old age pension. He referred to 1908 speech of David Lloyd George and stated it was time we moved on from there. I certainly agree with that. I suppose it was forward thinking at the time. Perhaps the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, is the Lloyd George of today.

I have an issue with the term "State pension". The word "State" has connotations of eastern Europe. Perhaps "national pension" would be a better term. "State" implies one receives something from the State. If we called it a "national pension" instead of a "State pension" it might be a little less harsh. It is just a suggestion.

I like the idea of changing the name of "unemployment benefit" to "jobseeker's benefit". That is positive. Instead of a person being unemployed and dependent, it gives the impression of someone who is active and seeking a job. The word "job" is old-fashioned. Perhaps we could call it a "work-seekers benefit". In a thesaurus, "work" is a broader term than "job". Perhaps we can examine that on Committee Stage.

I was also struck by the term "illness benefit". It was called "disability benefit". I know from my work in the disability sector that people with disabilities often state that while they have a disability, they are not ill. Perhaps we also need to examine that. I know that disability benefit is payable by the Department to those aged under 66 years who are incapable of work because of illness and who have enough social insurance contributions.

I understand employment legislation does not exist on the issue of sick pay or sick leave. This means that a person on sick leave from employment, with or without a medical certificate, is not automatically entitled to pay. Instead, it is at the discretion of the employer to decide policy on sick pay and sick leave, subject to the employment contract and terms and conditions. If the terms and conditions of employment do not include entitlement to paid sick leave, the employee may apply for disability benefit if he or she has enough social insurance contributions. Perhaps we should examine that area and debate it.

The Bill makes significant changes to the pension system in operation in this country. It brings all the pensions together in a new non-contributory pension for those aged over 66. I support that measure. The new pension will have an increased means disregard of €20, an increase from €7.60. That has not been increased for a considerable length of time. It is envisaged this new charge will mean approximately 34,000 pensioners will receive a higher pension or a full pension. The increase in the means disregard will mean a single person with no other means will be able to have capital of €35,000 and still qualify for a full rate pension.

The Minister stated the rules governing secondary benefits such as fuel allowance and the household benefits package will not be changed. Will he elaborate on how capital and income from work will affect these entitlements? We should examine that. There will be a new earnings disregard of €100 per week for all those in receipt of the new pension. It is hoped this will encourage people over the age of 66 who would like to remain in the workforce to do so. I believe that is the intention. Remaining in work can provide many older people with an opportunity for social interaction, especially if they live alone. I welcome any move to facilitate those who wish to remain in employment.

The earnings disregard will also be extended to widows under the age of 66. We had that debate in the House recently. It was raised with the Minister two weeks ago and I am pleased he took it on board. There is a need to introduce a similar earnings disregard for people in receipt of a contributory pension as it would enable them to work after reaching 66 years of age. Any income they have from employment is added to their State and occupational pension and the entire amount is then taxed. We should examine that.

I understand this is also the case for widows in receipt of a contributory pension. They have any income from work added to their pension and the entire amount is liable for tax, in addition to any child dependent allowance they receive. Section 47 in Part 4 amends the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 to exempt the early childhood supplement from being reckoned for income tax purposes. Can a similar exemption be introduced for widows?

I welcome any move the Government makes to ensure that pension schemes are compliant with pensions legislation. Recently we saw some worrying reports regarding abuses in this area. The changes the Minister is making whereby the Pensions Ombudsman can bypass internal dispute resolution procedures is a welcome move. If it is in the opinion of the Pensions Ombudsman that no internal dispute resolution procedure exists, he is unable to investigate a complaint regarding pension entitlements. This would appear to make the Pensions Act unworkable as all an employer would need to do to frustrate the Act would be to refuse to establish an internal dispute resolution procedure and thereby deny a citizen his or her right of appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman.

Wherever the internal dispute resolution exists there must be clear guidelines on how it operates and that it is not used to frustrate an inquiry by an ombudsman. I apologise for my contribution being disjointed. I did not have as much time to gather my thoughts as I would have liked. As we have two weeks before Committee Stage I may be able to make a better contribution then. I urge the Minister to give the Opposition a little time to get our heads around important legislation. We want to contribute in a positive way to it and do not have the same professional back-up or time as the Minister. He has had a number of months to prepare this while we have had a few hours.

See this speech in context