John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Law Reform and Pensions Bill 2006. It is quite unusual for me to acknowledge that I agree with a comment made by Deputy Finian McGrath about social disadvantage. I agree with his argument that the way to deal with social disadvantage is through education. While I listened to him speak about social welfare in general, I realised that the traditional argument that increases in various benefits are insufficient is no longer relevant to a discussion on social welfare. In saying this, I do not mean to upset my colleagues on the opposite side of the House. In debating social welfare issues, we now look at fundamental changes, which is a reflection of the previous budget which introduced a range of real and significant increases in social welfare payments.

Deputy Sargent acknowledged that the increases were significant but argued that we should not forget rising costs. We do not forget that costs are increasing but in real terms, the increases outlined in the budget and carried through in this Bill are multiples of the cost of living index. As a result, they are very real increases.

I will now examine the impact of the Bill. It proposes to change the name of the non-contributory old age pension to the State pension, which is a much more appropriate name. The Bill changes specific aspects of the non-contributory old age pension. The new weekly disregard of €20 ensures that a single person with no other income can have capital of €35,000 while a married couple can have capital of €70,000. This change is of considerable comfort to people who have invested in SSIAs and similar products and recognises where we are.

A special earnings disregard of €100 per week will be introduced to allow pensioners to earn more income without eroding the value of their pensions, which is appropriate not just from the perspective of pensioners but because there is a demand for people with experience who might not want to work full-time or retire permanently. There is an opportunity for these people to engage in limited work. I ask the Minister to pay attention to this aspect because there is a demand for workers. A significant number of people in their 60s can contribute and would like to work on a part-time basis. Let us see what the take-up is on the €100 earnings disregard, which is innovative. The market requires this innovative initiative, as do individuals. An analysis should be carried out each year to find out how many people are taking up this option. I would like to see the disregard extended so that people could work two or three days a week without it having a significant negative impact on their pension.

I would like to refer to the early childhood supplement, which followed a long and difficult debate on how to tackle child care and so on. The budget announcement is being given legislative effect in the Bill. The constituents to whom I spoke gave a warm reception to the proposal. This move reflects a targeting of resources at an age group that might not normally be in school and for whom additional costs could be involved. The Minister was correct to go this route.

I draw the Minister's attention to an issue which is not referred to specifically in the legislation. The question of over-payments by the Department of Social and Family Affairs arises from time to time in the Committee of Public Accounts. These over-payments can arise for a number of reasons, including fraud and so on. While I have raised the issue on a number of occasions, significant progress has not been made in this regard. The relationship between the Minister's Department and Revenue needs to be much tighter. I am dealing with a constituent of mine who is a lone parent. She has been working in a supermarket and making up-to-date PAYE and PRSI contributions. I understand it was her responsibility to make her situation known to the Department, but she failed. When I discussed the matter with her, she was able to show me all her tax certificates and other details. Therefore, she could not understand why the Department of Social and Family Affairs did not automatically get these details from the Revenue Commissioners. As people who have been receiving these payments may be vulnerable and may not always know what their entitlements are, Departments should communicate with each other in that regard.

That individual owes in excess of €20,000 as a result of over-payments over four or five years, which was just discovered a few months ago. That woman will be paying back that money for a long number of years. From an administrative point of view, the Department should be able to track these over-payments that are not fraudulent and occur because someone is earning and has gone over the limit.

I acknowledge the significant change in increasing the period of carer's benefit by nine months to two years. This time last year I spent a significant amount of time in Our Lady's Hospital in Crumlin. Very often, when we talk about carer's benefit, we think about people who are caring long-term for an elderly relative or someone with a disability. However, I came across a significant number of people in Our Lady's Hospital who had children who would require treatment not for life, but for six or 12 months. Many of these people were unaware that they were entitled to carer's benefit. More information should be made available to these people because it is not always easy to access this information at such a traumatic time in one's life. Once they access the service and realise what is available to them, it can make a significant difference. I welcome the increase in the respite care grant.

I would like to refer briefly to the one-parent family payment. Lone parents often fall into the poverty trap, and one piece of legislation is not sufficient to deal with the issue. However, significant progress is being made in this area. While the increase in the income limit for the one-parent family payment from €290 to €375 a week is significant, it is not sufficient in its own right. While other initiatives must be undertaken, in particular, the rental accommodation scheme, the Minister must consider dealing with lone parents in a much more holistic way. The rental accommodation scheme, in conjunction with the lone parent allowance, family income supplement and so forth, will tackle some of the poverty trap issues. While it is still early days, the new guidelines for medical cards mean that people who traditionally had problems and were living on the margins will now be able to access them more easily by taking into account the cost of child care, mortgage payments, rental payments and so on. These changes will address what were previously referred to as poverty trap issues.

See this speech in context