Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

There are few certainties in life but death and taxes are supposed to be on that list. In this House, we can be sure there will be a Finance Bill and two Social Welfare Bills. We may not be certain when the Bill will be published or when those of us on this side of the House can consider it, but the Bill is here and the criticisms of the delay have already been made.

The first Social Welfare Bill gives effect to the changes in rates that must come into force on 1 January each year. The second Bill allows for rates that come into effect at a later date, usually on 1 April. At one time it was June and sometimes it was October. We must acknowledge that the year has been streamlined in social welfare terms. The second Social Welfare Bill, with great imagination but a little degree of honesty, was often referred to as the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill. When the Bills Office was less disenchanted with its lot, it might call it the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. This year it is called the Social Welfare Law Reform and Pensions Bill, which sounds portentous and significant, but it is not the case. It seeks to bring about some change which must be acknowledged. However, in terms of its build-up and the media manipulation which is part and parcel of politics, it fails to deliver on what was promised over recent months.

The first significant section in the Bill relates to the increases in child benefit, which is the Government playing catch-up. The promise of 2001 has now largely been met. However, if one takes the three yearly increases and index link them from 2001, the Government is €5 a month short on the first and second child and €7 a month short on the second, third and subsequent children. If it is eventually to catch up, the Government must take this into account when introducing what I hope will be its final budget, but that is up to the electorate to decide.

The real changes are in section 4 where the Minister introduces some name changes to several social welfare payments. From where did the demand for these changes come? As a result of these name changes, the Minister may become known as the Minister who got rid of the old age pension. As a result of what he is proposing, there will no longer be an old age pension. My concern is that name changes of this type are an attempt to take attention away from more important issues. Playing around with language is almost Orwellian when there has not been a debate on whether these payments had appropriate titles.

I welcome the minimum €253 PRSI contribution for those who avail of the child care services relief. It remains to be seen whether the tax disregard of €10,000 is sufficient or appropriate. I suspect it will not be because it resigns people who offer child care services to a potential wage of less than the average industrial wage or the minimum wage. I am not sure whether we should legislate for this.

The Minister places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the carer's benefit is increasing from 65 weeks to two years and that the respite grant is increasing to €1,200. However, this ignores many of the changes that need to be made in regard to carers in general. The reality is that the majority of those who qualify for either carer's benefit or carer's assistance do so under the carer's assistance category. Those who qualify at all are a significant minority of those involved in caring, given that more than 50% of people over the age of 55 are engaged in caring for older people. I would have thought that Bills such as this would provide an opportunity to address this inconsistency in our legislation and policies.

The Minister decided to discontinue the pre-retirement allowance. I have not heard much of a fight against this in other contributions because the reality is that the economic circumstances which brought about its introduction no longer exist. However, given that the Minister has decided not to specify the date from which the allowance will be phased out, the cynic in me might think that this is a decision that might be made after a general election. We will wait and see. However, the ministerial order will be examined with great interest.

In terms of bringing about a greater consolidation of social welfare payments, the Minister will have the support of my party. While he could have gone further and bolder decisions could have been made in that area, it is a step in the right direction. The Minister's Department being used as an incubator for the early childhood support payment is something we can comment on here, even though he has no policy responsibility in this area. While it is an additional sum and criticisms have been made that it should have been tied to child benefit, it will be welcomed by some people. The question is why this amount was chosen and why the payment will be discontinued once the child reaches six years of age. It is just a half a loaf approach to the child care issue. If the Government is considering child care in its wider sense, it should take a more holistic approach to child care needs. This measure does not go as far as it should.

The largest elements of the Bill relate to technical changes only in regard to pension provisions. There is a need for the debate to which the Minister referred, in which my party will gladly participate. However, we already had the report by the Pensions Board. There appears to be an ongoing review by the new Pensions Board of its long-term vision for pensions. The introduction of the PRSA legislation by the Minister's predecessor means politics has been sold a pup in regard to private pensions. The first step we must take in terms of meeting the basic needs of our citizens in later years is to ensure the basic State pension is as substantial as possible. After that, we must consider how private pensions can augment this basic provision.

The Minister has inherited policy in this area from his predecessor and it seems the Government is committed to providing a meagre State pension. As a percentage of average incomes, Irish pensions are among the lowest in Europe. The Government must be bold and abandon the gimmicks involved in setting the State pension at £100 or €200 a week. The objective should be to link pensions to average incomes at a level of at least 30%. Annual budgetary increments are required to bring about the provision of an adequate basic income for those citizens who have given most to society. There is no evidence that such an approach will be taken.

There are concerns in regard to the operation of personal retirement savings accounts, PRSAs, which are structured so that funds cannot be accessed for a long period. Those who need the benefit of the additional augmented income find they are prevented from availing of it while those who sold these packages — the pension companies and intermediaries — can take 1% in every year a fund is in existence, perhaps as much as a 25% stake. There is a major dichotomy between what the Government says is its policy in regard to the uptake of PRSAs by those on low and middle incomes and the types of tax reliefs given to the richest members of society. The State now gives more in terms of tax foregone for private pensions than it pays in basic pensions. The Government's policies will ensure this gap grows ever wider. It is not something in which the Government or the Minister can take a great deal of pride.

I am disappointed the Government has played ducks and drakes with the lone parents issue. The new income threshold is welcome but the ongoing review means lone parents and the organisations which represent them are living in a state of anticipation that negative changes are in the offing. Decisions could have been made in regard to cohabitation in this Bill. It could also have dealt with issues relating to further education by enabling people to improve their lot and that of their families. Perhaps it is too close to an election for the Government to take such bold initiatives. This Bill represents a missed opportunity and so far into the life of a Government, it disappoints.

See this speech in context