David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

As always, the Opposition assures the Minister of a constructive debate. I thank him for asking his officials to brief Opposition Deputies on the Bill, which was helpful. I hope that the practice will continue.

The Minister must be one of the happiest Ministers in history to have so much money to give away. I will not be churlish because the Bill has many good aspects. One cannot give away €1.41 billion as the Minister is doing without helping many people or making them happy. We must remember that people have paid this money to the Exchequer through taxation, particularly indirect tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty and so on. We are redistributing their money.

The Combat Poverty Agency stated that last year's package was more progressive than regressive. According to the agency, previous years' packages were regressive, but there is a trend leading away from that situation. The Opposition has sought evenly distributed payments to target the most needy, which is finally being done. I compliment the Minister in that regard.

On the first page of his speech, the Minister referred to "important and necessary structural reforms that create change, open up fresh opportunities and deliver enlightened social policies". While the Minister has gone a long way in this respect, there is further to go, which I am sure he will acknowledge.

The first issue mentioned in the Minister's speech was child poverty, which he described as "totally unacceptable in the prosperous and progressive Ireland of the 21st century". He should examine an article in today's Irish Examiner by Mr. Fergus Finlay, the head of Barnardos, who describes an experience of a child care worker dealing with a child from an extraordinarily deprived background. Going to school at the age of four or five years, the child is already old and has been through a lifetime of awful experiences. The child is typical in many areas where streets have no signposts in order to confuse gardaí searching for drug dealers, criminals and so forth.

Today, that underbelly was evident in the shooting dead of an innocent bystander in this city. We must tackle this underbelly, at the root of much of which is poverty. While children suffer child poverty, the Minister was right to say that society also suffers in that children are society's wealth and future. Speaking as a former teacher, primary school teachers will identify the child in junior infants who will go to prison as a young adult. We must intervene before that point. We need a structured pre-school system, particularly for children lacking support at home. We need to examine the crèche system and the child care sector.

For some time, the Minister has spoken of a second tier payment. In his reply he might tell me that I am wrong but I understood that it was to be an amalgamation of the CDA, back to school and FIS payments and targeted, possibly automatically, at the families most in need of it. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility to do. I welcome the Minister's amalgamation of the three CDA payments and the increase to €22, which the Opposition called for previously.

What of the Minister's other vision that he shared with the House two years ago or more, namely, a special, targeted second tier payment? The Minister obliged the Opposition's calls for advertising campaigns to increase the take-up of the back to school clothing and footwear and FIS payments. While they were successful to a certain point, some people have still not availed of the payments. A means of doing more would be to make automatic payments, which should be possible in this day and age.

Recently, I suggested that the deadline for claiming the back to school clothing and footwear payment be extended to the end of November if not the end of the year, but I was disappointed when the Minister, who I have privately and publicly said is progressive, bluntly said "No". Regularly, people attend my clinics and office and say that they never knew about the payment. They would have claimed it if they had known, but it was too late by that stage. They can apply for exceptional needs payments, but those are not the same as the back to school payment and are messier. These people are entitled to the back to school payment.

September is a busy time for parents. They must prepare children for school and there are many hassles, worries and things to do. It is simple to forget, fail to go about claiming or not to know of the back to school clothing and footwear payment. It should not incur an additional cost to extend the deadline to the end of November so that those entitled to it can make their claims. As it is an administrative issue, I do not know why the Minister said he had no plans to extend the deadline and would not consider the matter. It was unlike him and I appeal to him to re-examine this modest proposal.

If people find out about the payment — that they can get it from community welfare officers if their families are on low incomes, have a certain number of children and so on — when they meet other parents at school gates in the first or second week of October, it is already too late. I do not know whether the Minister would need to issue a directive or administrative order to community welfare officers or whether legislation would be required, but he should consider the matter.

I meant to state at the outset that the social welfare debate, what the Minister is doing and the budget are important and fundamental. Is it not amazing that this debate is taking place in the last week before Christmas, that we will continue until 11 p.m. tonight, the graveyard shift if ever there was one, and that it will be guillotined tomorrow? Reading through the Minister's speech, it struck me that certain payments, while commencing in January, will not be made until the middle of February for all kinds of administrative reasons. Why can this process not be commenced earlier than the Christmas holiday deadline? It would give us time to debate the matter and for the payments to be made in January. An election will intervene, but the issue could be examined for the future. We should not be debating the important issue of social welfare and all that goes with it while heading towards the midnight hour.

Like everyone, pensioners are entitled to a basic standard of living. I welcome that the Minister has kept his promise to increase the basic rate for those under 80 years of age to €209.30. With all the pressures and expenses that now exist, should the increase have been more? Some agencies were seeking more but it is welcome and we acknowledge that it was done. Older people need it because they worry about having enough money and the future.

I regret that another worry has been added to that list — that there will be a bill for their dependants after their deaths to pay nursing home charges. Do we really need to do that? The Government should reconsider this because it will add to the worries of those who have worked all their lives. Such a fear could cause them to hand their houses over earlier to avoid this death tax.

The fuel allowance was increased by €5 last year but only €4 this year. I expected the same increase at least this year because fuel prices have increased so much. From January, however, the number of free units of electricity and gas will increase, which is welcome. Older people need heat more than the rest of us. It has been argued that the time for the fuel allowance should be extended by four weeks, starting two weeks earlier and ending two weeks later in the year. We should consider that next year.

Pensions policy was mentioned by the Minister. It is a major issue and many models exist. The cost to the State of tax foregone through pension investment is heading for €3 billion per year, a huge amount. The Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs held hearings on this and some witnesses expressed concern about the way some of the current schemes are being administered. The Minister should ensure the Pensions Board has enough power to carry out its functions because €3 billion is a huge amount to forego each year. We must shine a light on this. I welcome the publication of a Green Paper on pensions but by the time anyone gets around to looking at it, we will be on the other side of the election. We must, however, debate this topic.

The Government has done much for carers. I welcome the half rate carer's allowance now payable to people in receipt of another social welfare payment, although we are yet to hear which payments will be allowed. The Minister must have read Fine Gael policy in this area because that was one of the key elements when we drafted a policy on carers. I must rewrite it now. I congratulate the Minister, however, because this will help many people. There was an anomaly that when people reached a certain age, they had to make a choice between the State pension and the carer's allowance when they were still caring for a person. It was unfair.

Carers do a great deal of work and we all agree we should try to maintain those who need care in their own homes for as long as possible. People prefer to stay in their own homes with their own possessions and live longer as a result. I visited Denmark this year and it was remarkable. The Danish stopped building nursing homes in 1997 because the home care and rehabilitation is so good. People who have a stroke enjoy immediate occupational and speech therapy and physiotherapy. The person is back on his or her feet as soon as possible. That is certainly not the case here, where the policy is to get someone into a nursing home at huge cost to the State and to the person's dignity and independence. I support the Minister for Health and Children's policy of trying to keep people in their own homes. We must refocus to make services available to allow for proper care in people's own homes. The spouse's means test removes the recognition of a carer's work, however, because the spouse's income can lead to a carer receiving a reduced amount or nothing at all. We must reconsider this.

We have called for some time for the disability allowance to be payable to people in institutions as a matter of right. The HSE takes back 80% anyway so it is a case of swings and roundabouts. Recognition of the need for such a measure is important even if the State is giving with one hand and taking with the other.

For many years we talked about the effect of the marriage bar. If it was introduced now it would be found to be unconstitutional. The Minister has not given a timetable for the introduction of the qualified adult allowance payments up to the full rate of the non-contributory State pension but it is important that a woman has a pension in her own right. Many women gave up work outside the home but worked twice as hard in the home for years rearing children and looking after older relatives. Ireland has changed and both parents now must work to keep a roof over their heads. Individualisation encouraged that system. Some people ask if that is the best for society.

Widows and widowers need support but I do not know if the Minister has considered making the household benefits package available to widows over a certain age who might find it difficult to find employment.

I was disappointed that the budget and the Social Welfare Bill do not mention support for young carers. There are 3,000 of them in the State. The Minister implied that I asked for them to get the carer's allowance but that is not the case, I asked that other support be made available to them. Ministers promised they would discuss this but these young people are out there and their schooling, social lives and entire childhoods are suffering while the Government is doing nothing to address this issue. It is not that it has not been alerted — I do not know how many times I have asked questions about it — but nothing has been done for young carers.

Young carers must help a parent or sibling in intimate tasks, such as feeding, washing or clothing, then go to school, where they worry about the parent at home, and then go home and do this work again. I do not know whether somebody comes in during the day, but the Carers Association says 3,000 young carers are affected. I would like the Minister to outline a strategy for them. The Minister might say this will be part of the carers strategy, which will be brought forward later in the year, but nothing has happened in the two years I have debated this issue and I do not know why, given that the Minister has acknowledged the issue should be addressed. Perhaps he will outline why they are being ignored.

The introduction of a national waste waiver scheme is another issue not covered by this legislation and it may not be covered by the Bill the Minister proposes to introduce next year. Every local authority does its own thing, depending on its budget but a number do not operate a waiver scheme. The cost of the disposal of household waste is impacting on older people and social welfare recipients. While this does not fall strictly within the remit of the Department, it should be addressed.

Many social welfare recipients on housing estates depend on oil heating and they receive a once off oil fill to do them for most of the year. I am not sure whether the Minister has ever considered a bulk payment of the fuel allowance rather than a weekly payment to help them pay in one go. Officials might say it should be paid weekly rather than in one lump sum because otherwise the recipient could blow the money on a holiday or something else. However, this is not a total nanny State and, therefore, if a social welfare recipient would like the fuel allowance up front to pay for an oil fill, it should be examined. I do not know whether this has happened in the past and there might be an administrative issue, but I hope the Minister will examine the possibilities in this regard.

I welcome the changes to the farm assist scheme and I am pleased many farmers will have an opportunity to improve their pension entitlements, as requested by the IFA and others. The Bill has a great deal going for it as a significant amount is being given away to social welfare recipients. The job is not complete, however, and much more needs to be done. Payments must be focused where they are needed and a good start has been made with the operation of the CDA in particular. The Minister must move beyond that to provide a targeted, automatic payment to recipients and poverty traps must be avoided.

During his budget speech, the Minister referred to lone parents and the cohabitation rule, about which he has been talking for some time. When will proposals be brought before the House to make amendments in this regard? Will they be introduced in the Bill the Minister proposes to bring forward in February or will it be left until after the election? The major problem faced by lone parents is the cost and availability of child care, which prevents them from joining the workforce as they need also child care before and after school as well during school holidays. I was approached recently by a lone parent who wants to return to work. She has two girls aged nine and ten but she wanted to know who would mind her children when they are off school.

The cost and availability of housing is not covered by the legislation but it impacts significantly on social welfare recipients. They pay huge rents to private landlords. While the rental accommodation scheme has been introduced, it is not working. Its implementation has been extremely slow because property is not available to the standard required. This is a worry because that implies people are living in substandard housing throughout the State.

All of us are worried by the levels of personal borrowing and indebtedness. The Minister has quite rightly expressed alarm and concern about people who borrow money at exorbitant rates from licensed moneylenders. This demonstrates the pressure people are under and in the current era major expectations and pressures are placed on parents with children. Children go to school and if one of their class mates has bought expensive new trainers or a school bag, they want the same. Parents want to do the best they can for their children as a result. I commend the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other voluntary organisations on their work and on the millions of euro they spend to alleviate hardship and poverty.

Moneylending and debt is a problem. The Minister is probably the happiest ever holder of his office because of all the money he can give away but the underlying structural issues, which are still causing problems, must be examined. Imagination and vision are required to tackle them. Community welfare officers are in the front line trying to address hardship. They make exceptional needs and other payments to people under serious pressure. We have all been visited by such people in our clinics. However, the Government proposes to transfer community welfare officers from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I am not sure how much debate has taken place on this proposal but the Government should not tamper with their role without great care and thought because they are at the coalface dealing with dire problems.

I welcome the improvements in the legislation and the many increases that people deserve. I look forward hopefully to being on the Government benches this time next year when we will be in a position to do more for them. In the meantime, I thank the Minister for what he has done to date. His predecessor introduced 16 savage cutbacks and we have all worked hard to reverse them. The Minister has done a great deal in this regard but more remains to be done. As Jesus once said, "The poor will always be with you" and we will have to do our best for them. Every Member is committed to doing the best he or she can for people who need support and help. I ask the Minister to examine the relative income poverty model, which deals with the significant gap between those who have a great deal and those who have very little. Consistent poverty remains, although a great deal of progress has been made. Relative income poverty is beginning to surface and cause problems. The Minister has had his head in the sand in this regard for a long time. He has been in denial, saying this is not the way to consider poverty. He says he has solved the problem because consistent poverty has almost been tackled.

Significant issues related to indebtedness, credit and borrowing are being driven by relative income poverty and this must be tackled.

It is getting late and I think I have said enough so I will hand over to Deputy Penrose.

See this speech in context