Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

I begin by thanking Deputies on all sides of the House for their comments on and consideration of this Bill. I am particularly grateful for the kind remarks that were made on aspects of it but I will also take account of criticisms made and questions raised. We will have a further two hours of debate later, on Committee and Report Stages, and I look forward to answering Deputies' more detailed questions at that point. We were here until 11 p.m. last night and we heard from all sides of the House where there was a broad welcome for the provisions of the legislation, with some concerns and criticisms.

Deputy Stanton asked if I would extend the back to school clothing and footwear allowance beyond September and I will consider this proposal. Some 84,000 families with approximately 172,000 children will benefit from that scheme this year at a cost of €25 million. The general consensus, until now, was that it should focus on September as that is when children go back to school. Some fears were expressed about spreading the allowance across the year, not that this is what the Deputy suggested. Perhaps one should not pay a back to school allowance in June or July, but we will consider Deputy Stanton's proposal to extend the scheme by a month or two.

Deputy Stanton also asked about the second tier in child income support and my strong view is that a second tier is needed. The National Economic and Social Council, NESC, has worked on this matter for some time and I urge that this work continue. In the meantime, I have tried to construct what is effectively a second tier by increasing the family income supplement and easing means tests and disregards. Most specifically on this matter, I have put almost €60 million towards CDAs, qualified child allowances, as they are now known. Through these mechanisms I have tried to construct a second tier, of sorts.

Taking into account child benefit and child dependant allowance, increases of up to €32 per month may be received by the poorest one third of children in the population. The other two thirds will receive an increase of €10 in child benefit allowance. This may not be a formal arrangement, but, in effect, it is a two tier system. I understand that Deputy Stanton is committed to the two tier system and I suggest we have commenced such an initiative as we now pay a higher rate to poorer children. I urge NESC to complete its work as this system must be constructed in a more formal manner which is interrelated with income tax allowances.

There was a general welcome for the half rate carer's allowance. It is intended that a person in receipt of most social welfare payments, excluding job seeker's allowance or benefit, who is providing someone with full-time care and attention will retain his or her payment as well as receiving the additional payment. This mirrors the current arrangements for respite care grants. The level of additional payment that a social welfare recipient will receive will depend on the person's means, with the maximum payment being the equivalent of a half rate carers allowance. We are still working out some of the details of this measure, which will come into effect in September 2007. I would like to introduce it earlier but it is not administratively possible to do so.

With regard to the qualified adult allowance, I mentioned earlier the special increase being made of €23.70. I expect that approximately 2,000 qualified adults will benefit from this arrangement in 2007 and 6,000 annually thereafter. From next September, the legislation will allow spouses and partners of State pensioners who are currently receiving joint payments in addition to qualified adult allowance as part of the overall combined personal rate of State pension to move to separate payments of the qualified adult allowance. It is intended to make the payments separately, although there will be terms and conditions in respect of dependency and it can be paid jointly if people so wish.

I acknowledge Deputy Stanton's persistence on the issue of young carers. It is important to note that the national partnership agreement, Towards 2016, commits the Government to conducting a study of the extent to which children take on inappropriate care roles in order to establish the level of impact the issue has on the lives of the children concerned. Based on the outcome of this study and an analysis of the issues identified therein, a programme of in-home supports will be developed to alleviate specific problems. That will not entirely address the concerns of Deputy Stanton, who estimated the number of child carers at 3,000. I am opposed to paying carer's allowance to such children and the Deputy has clarified that he is not asking me to do so. We will have to investigate what we can do in that area. Young children should not be forced to become carers and I do not want to do anything that might encourage more children into that role.

Deputy Penrose raised the issue of free fuel and bulk payments. A review of allowance recipients on a customer panel indicated that 58% preferred weekly payments, 22% preferred a one-off lump sum, 12% preferred direct debit to a supplier and 8% preferred two lump sum payments during the fuel season. While the review may have been similar to opinion polls in that one cannot be sure what people will think on the day, it concluded that a single payment would be administratively efficient but could present other difficulties. The allowance would be paid in advance in September or October, whereas changes in recipients' circumstances during the heating season could disqualify them from payments, with the result that they would have to refund any overpayments made. The review recommended that the weekly payment method should be retained, which is what I have decided to do. I accept the argument on the lump sum, particularly where oil is purchased at the start of the year, but the weekly system appears to be working well.

The proposals on lone parents have not gone away. A series of policy discussions was held recently, the relevant document has been published and legislation is being prepared on the matter. To the extent that delays have arisen, these are because we are trying to respond to requests from lone parent organisations with regard to ensuring services and supports from other Departments and agencies are harmonised in the legislation. I am aware Deputy Stanton has repeatedly stressed the importance of child care to this issue. However, I am not prepared to delay acting on the proposals until everything is ready because that could mean the necessary measures are never introduced.

Several calls were made regarding a cost of disability payment, which deserves further consideration.

A number Deputies raised the issue of fuel. The allowance, which had not been increased for a number of years, was doubled by this Government over the past two years. Approximately 274,000 people apply for the allowance which, at an overall cost of €32 million, is an expensive measure. A further €50 million has been allocated this year to alleviate the increases in electricity and gas prices. This year's package will, therefore, cost €90 million, which represents a significant level of support.

I am pleased we were able to increase the weekly income thresholds for family income supplement with effect from January 2007, at an estimated annual cost of €32 million. I have been urged by Deputies to encourage more people to take advantage of this payment. We have discussed ways of increasing the involvement of the Revenue Commissioners in light of the requirement that recipients are in employment. Revenue has included notices about the payment on some of its forms but I would like to work more closely with the agency with regard to improving take-up levels. A recent campaign has significantly increased the numbers in receipt of the payment to 21,000.

Several Deputies referred to the argument about whether to measure consistent or relative poverty. I will not rehearse my position because it has not changed and we already have our hands full in terms of addressing consistent poverty without responding to the 18% to 20% figures claimed by the more academic measurement of risk of poverty. Those figures are not real and I am determined to focus our energy on the actual problems which exist with regard to consistent poverty. I do not mind the measure being used but I object to its adoption as a headline poverty figure because it distracts us from focusing on the real issues and is unhelpful in terms of making policies. While we might eliminate poverty, relative poverty will always exist.

I will provide figures on Committee Stage with regard to what happens to lone parents and pensioners who receive welfare payments before engaging with various welfare schemes. I thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions on Second Stage.

See this speech in context