Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

I apologise for not being able to attend the briefing on the Bill the Minister kindly organised this year, as in other years. It was due entirely to a scheduling difficulty on my part. I value such briefings and I would have appreciated it again this year. Nevertheless, I got the gist of what the Minister was proposing last Wednesday although there may be clarifications in my contribution to which he may care to respond when replying to the debate.

Opposition spokespersons are not here to bury the Minister but to praise him and to take into account much of what he has achieved in improving the standard of payments across the board. Our role as Opposition spokespersons comes into play because the Minister's artistry, like that of most of us, is born out of an industriousness rather than a sublime talent. He probably believed too readily the writing on the paint tin given to him by the Minister for Finance which stated that a guaranteed velvet texture can be applied to any surface. In reality, while he has managed to paint the wall, there are significant lumpy bits and the paint peels in the strangest of places.

As we critically examine the current social welfare system, it is valid to ask why the opportunity was not taken to correct many of the anomalies that continue to exist. There is no doubt the level of payments have been increased significantly but the categories of payments, the inconsistencies in such payments and the degrees of unfairness that exist for different categories of people who do not qualify for many of those payments are the real remit of any Minister for Social and Family Affairs. This Bill, and the Social Welfare Bills in January and February, provide an opportunity to address those anomalies.

The Minister and the Government made great play about the fact that the contributory State pension has exceeded the €200 benchmark they set out, just as they made great play about the £100 benchmark at the end of their first term of Government. While there have been large increases in the State pension and massive progress has been made, when one compares a percentage of the average income here with that in other developed countries, Ireland continues to lag considerably behind.

Despite the benchmark the Government must address immediately the partnership commitment to have the State pension at one third of average pension levels and the possibility of further increases in future budgets to help bring that about. In percentage terms, that figure is only half the amount on which people in other developed countries are living. We must debate the reason that is the case.

Deputy Stanton said we already spend more in tax forgone in giving support to private pensions. In my other role as finance spokesperson in the small party I represent, I asked the Minister's Cabinet colleague about the restriction last year regarding the €5 million limit on private pension personal plans. A total of 116 individuals managed to get under that limit last year. One individual managed to acquire a personal pension plan of more than €20 million which the State was subsidising at a rate of 42%.

What is the state of our pension policy when, on the one hand, we forgo more in tax from the richest individuals while, on the other, we make a song and dance about large increases which effectively could be doubled if we did not have a tax subsidy on private pensions? That is inconsistent and it is unfair on pensioners who have built up this country to the position it enjoys today. Unless we have an honest debate on pensions at that level, these €20 increases will be seen historically as a missed opportunity because the likelihood is the economic circumstances in which we found ourselves in the past ten to 15 years will not exist to the same extent in the next 15 to 20 years. We must have the vision to ensure those benchmarks can be reached in the future.

What is also curious about the Minister's current policy is that he mentioned the Government's commitment to making qualified adults in receipt of the State pension or the qualified dependants of State pension recipients equal to those at the non-contributory level. I accept the higher increases will allow that to happen but the fact that those on the non-contributory pension will receive a higher increase than those on the contributory pension indicates there appears to be a policy, which has yet to be stated — if it exists the Minister might enlighten us — about overall individualisation. Is it a fact that the gap between the non-contributory and the contributory pension is narrowing while at the same time the qualified adult allowance level is meeting the non-contributory level? Has some new figure to be reached at a date the Minister has decided not to tell us about? If that is the way the State policy is going, we must have that debate as well.

If that is the policy, it contradicts the way the Minister is treating the same issue in respect of other social welfare payments. For instance, the State pension for qualified adults over 66 will increase by X amount but the increase is less for those under 66. That is reversed in respect of other social welfare payments, particularly with regard to carer's allowance. Why are carers over the age of 66 getting a smaller increase than those under 66, especially when the representative organisations like the Carer's Association tell us that 50% of all carers are over 60 years of age? The likelihood is that the proportion of people who will be disadvantaged by the smaller increase are the majority of carers. Has the Minster's Department done any analysis of that figure? What is the reason for that distinction which appears to be at variance with what the Minister is trying to achieve in the general pensions area? In terms of all other social welfare payments, the way qualified adults are being treated means that gap will widen. We appear to have three distinct strands in regard to payment policy and the way qualified adults are treated.

Deputy Penrose is right. The opportunity existed in this budget to get rid of the limitation rule. At a stroke that would have abolished discrimination against the greater number of our citizens dependent on social welfare, including women affected by the socially disgraceful marriage code that existed until the early 1970s. Those people, who are becoming grandparents, are being adversely affected by those employment practices, by the State itself and by other large institutions such as banks. Until the Minister begins to recognise that anomaly, budgets which provide that the system stays the same but the benefit payments improve will not continue to keep the masses happy. Our system is creaking. It is a contradictory system that is in need of large-scale change. I would like the Minister to address that in his reply having regard to the opportunity that will be presented by the second Social Welfare Bill that will be introduced early in the new year.

The PRSI changes and the threshold applying to health insurance assist minimum wage earners, but this represents merely a widening of the band. In effect, the Department will end up receiving more money. Increasing it at the higher income end of the scale in terms of the interest that PRSI is charged at means more money will come into the Department. The same is true of the health levy, especially with the proposal for higher income earners.

The Minister might explain the changes in regard to the optical benefits. There does not seem to be a parallel change such as there seems to be in the case of PRSI benefit. Is the Minister providing in the Bill that the lower limit in regard to optical benefit will remain unchanged, and if so, why is that anomaly being created?

The health levy is a flat rate tax on people's gross income, regardless of the fact that a higher charge will apply to people earning more than €100,000 per annum, about which I will not squeal even though it will affect most Members in this Chamber. The Minister's Cabinet colleague speaks against the idea of hypothecated taxes, that taxes can be raised for specific purpose and used for that purpose, particularly in the area of the environment. Yet the health levy is meant to pay for some of the heath service inadequacies in terms of ongoing funding. Other members of the Government seem to deal more in hypothetical taxes but I do not want to bring the Tánaiste into this debate at this time.

This Bill will not be opposed by any Member of this House but in this context more imagination and efforts to introduce reforms are required. If that is evident in the second Social Welfare Bill, there will be more support in this respect from this side of the House.

See this speech in context