Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. In that context, when I first became interested in politics, social welfare debates in this House were cutting edge affairs. The Visitors Gallery used to be full and people used to lobby intensely in the weeks before legislation was passed or the budget in respect of social welfare increases. I make this point because it is important not to lose sight of the fact that increased social welfare payments are still integral parts of many people's lives. This debate is taking place in the context of the Celtic tiger and the job opportunities available for many. However, a large percentage of the population still depend on social welfare payments such as unemployment assistance, invalidity payments or the old age pension. Members should always focus on that fact. While they consider the relative percentages of those unemployed and those in the workplace, it is still an accepted fact that large numbers are dependent on social welfare.

In the past ten years the Government has made great strides in trying to address poverty on behalf of those who are disadvantaged and in receipt of social welfare payments. This must also be acknowledged. It is important to place such efforts in the context of what the Government and Irish society in general are trying to achieve. I refer to social welfare increases, job creation, tax reduction and creating opportunities for all. What constitutes an opportunity to an elderly person living alone in a local authority house? Does Irish society genuinely understand the needs of such individuals? In general, it does so. All political parties and trade union movements accept that the vulnerable in society must receive the greatest care.

I do not accept the argument that a particular political party has a right-wing or left-wing philosophy. In general, Irish politics and communities are cohesive. Consequently, I welcome announcements and commitments to the effect that social welfare forms an integral part of the manner in which the challenges ahead will be addressed. As a Fianna Fáil Member, I am very proud of how in the past ten years the party has fulfilled its commitments in respect of the old age pension. In 1997 Fianna Fáil promised to increase it to £100, while in 2002 it stated it would increase it to €200. Not only has the party achieved that target, it has exceeded it.

This constitutes an acknowledgement that the Government, as well as Fianna Fáil as a political party, are highly conscious of the needs of the elderly. In addition, the Government has recently introduced some highly innovative schemes which I believe to have been an important factor. However, Members should not conclude that they have achieved everything that is necessary to ensure the elderly are well looked after. I make this point because they are probably the most silent and most resilient people in our society. Although they do not protest and probably vote along traditional lines, they are the people who made the sacrifices in previous years when times were difficult. They were probably obliged to work with a single income coming into their households at a time when rearing many children and high unemployment were the order of the day. Job opportunities were not readily available. In my constituency the mother in a family often worked and reared the children because men found it very difficult to find work in the 1980s and early 1990s.

These issues should be placed in the context of our aspirations for society. In general, while our achievements should be recognised, Members should not pat themselves on the back or assert that all the fundamental issues in respect of the elderly have been addressed. There is still social exclusion which extends to an inability to interact or socialise. The issue of transport was referred to by Deputy McHugh. These are all real and tangible challenges that must be faced by the Government and society when trying to address the outstanding obstacles confronting older people.

One of the most fundamental issues at stake in this regard pertains to demographic change. The challenges ahead in addressing older people's needs will be of greater importance. In this debate Members have been discussing issues such as social welfare increases, pensions, grant aid for the elderly and rural bus initiatives. In future pressures in respect of these issues will be brought increasingly to bear on Governments as they formulate policy. I welcome any debate that sets out parameters or opens up public consciousness as to what is required for older people. We have only encountered the tip of the iceberg in terms of what must be done.

Members have encountered the lack of care for elderly persons in nursing homes, as well as difficulties regarding policing such institutions and ensuring they are up to the required standard. As the Government and society move forward, they acknowledge past deficiencies. However, Members should note that, as the population ages because of demographic factors, such challenges will become even greater. Consequently, it is important to conduct a solid and open debate on what Members are trying to achieve. Is it simply social welfare payments for the sake of providing extra money or are they genuinely committed to ensuring older people will play an active and positive role in both society and the economy?

I welcome the debate on retirement ages. For example, the State spends thousands of euro on Garda Síochána recruitment. Although Garda numbers were increased to 14,000, a mandatory retirement age for Garda members was maintained. I wonder sometimes why an active person, with considerable experience of up to 35 years working in the Garda Síochána, must retire at a certain age. Members do not expect a person of 60 years of age to be as nimble on his or her feet as would be a recruit coming out of the Garda College in Templemore. At the same time, however, forcing a person to retire at a certain stage constitutes a huge loss to the Garda Síochána and society in general. Why can such members of the Garda who have a wealth of experience not be used for training purposes, advocacy in courts or presenting cases on behalf of the State? Why can they not be used in community associations and groups or in interacting as community liaison officers? Such challenges must be discussed if Members are serious about ensuring older people will be both cared for from the perspective of financial security and will consider themselves to be active participants in society.

While I will discuss the issue of child care later, I must declare a vested interest as I have a 15 month old daughter. Recently I read projections suggesting the average lifespan of a girl born today in the western world could rise to 100 years. While this will pose enormous challenges in the future, in the interim our society must begin to address all such potential challenges and acknowledge that at present we do not do our older people justice in the sense that although many of them have a significant role to play, we do not allow it.

In respect of housing policies, many local authorities provide sheltered housing for the elderly. They may consider some areas of a city to be appropriate for the elderly, while housing lone parents with large families in other districts, thereby breaking down societal bonds. It will be important to adopt a cohesive approach to housing and the manner in which our communities will be structured. I raise this point because I am sure that most Members, especially those who represent large urban areas, will agree. For example, a young girl who may have one or two children applies to the local authority for a house. Eventually she is allocated one and shipped off to some far-flung part of the city, with the result that the supports provided by her parents and grandparents are suddenly cut adrift. It will be important to adopt a flexible approach to housing and ensure older people are part and parcel of providing child rearing assistance. They are amenable and can pass on their expertise to the younger generation. These ideas sound far-flung but being a community means passing on experience, accepting responsibilities and then passing those responsibilities on to other people. Young people acknowledge the work and commitment of older people and, in turn, look after them in their latter days.

We can become extremely rigid and say we will provide a €200 social welfare payment per week to older people which should be sufficient. We can make a commitment to raise it by so many euro per year for the next five years. However, to make the lives of older people holistic and valued, we must address this issue. On one side of the scale we discuss child care, but we must also examine this issue on the other side.

Overall, social welfare increases must be acknowledged in the context of where we stand. There is no doubt that fewer people are dependent on unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit not only in real terms, but also as a percentage of the number of those in work. It is realistic to assume that, even though we now have less people percentage wise on unemployment assistance, they feel more alienated than they did when a large number of people were on social welfare payments, particularly unemployment assistance.

We must also consider young men who drifted through school, perhaps with psychological problems, alcohol abuse problems, drug addiction or without a solid family support service which we assume exists. These young people drifted out of national school and perhaps dabbled in secondary school for a little while. They are isolated from what is the norm in society at present, which is having a job and opportunities.

They felt more at home in times past when many more of their peers were unemployed and had fewer opportunities. As their peers move on and become more successful, those people become more alienated. We have a great deal to do. Statistics show suicide is an issue among young males. One must ask why, when so many opportunities, challenges and supports exist, young people find they cannot continue in life.

I say all of this because we have the resources, commitments and abilities to solve many problems. If one stated 20 years ago that we would solve the problems of emigration and unemployment, people would have scoffed and stated it was another empty political rhetorical promise. Those issues have been addressed. However, we must acknowledge the residual problems such as young males feeling completely isolated.

One can understand the context. Young lads go to school, they grow up and their friends move on, embrace opportunities and perhaps have more supports around them. The young male feels completely at sea and isolated in the context of what is happening around him. Often, we have the tragedy of suicide, which is an ongoing epidemic in our communities and we must address it.

Many people have debated the pros and cons of child benefit. Many people ask where does the money paid towards rearing a child go. In some communities it is called "make up money". We have a universal obligation to ensure no child is at risk. However, equally and as importantly, is it fair and reasonable that those with huge resources available to them as families are entitled to the same amount of money per week as a child who is born into challenging circumstances?

We must debate this in Parliament, society and, as a member of Fianna Fáil, in my party. Are we willing to continue funding universal child benefit? We must consider and examine this issue. We must be realistic about whether child benefit goes directly to offsetting the costs of rearing a child and providing child care facilities and services for the child or whether it is used to purchase an apartment in Florida.

No matter how affluent a society is, one must ask whether it is fundamentally right and fair. As individuals and political parties it is easier to say nothing. I believe as times change resources may not be as readily available as they are now. We may have to cut our cloth according to different measures in times ahead. This could cause major financial strains and the people who will suffer most are those who have least. I genuinely believe we must examine this issue.

I welcome the increases in child benefit to date, including the once-off payment and early childhood supplement. Just like on the issue of compulsory pensions, we should have a mature debate on this matter as a national Parliament. We should not play Mickey Mouse politics with a genuine issue which could create major problems and, more importantly, make our communities and society more divided and less cohesive.

We must be under no illusion that certain individuals are quite capable and competent and have the financial resources and wherewithal from an early stage to get on the ladder and make meaningful progress. Others do not have such opportunities because of where they are born or the circumstances into which they are born. However, the same supports are given to every child. We must discuss this in a mature, calm and rational manner. Often, when it comes to these issues, rational debate goes out the window.

We must also welcome developments in maternity benefit. One states a society can be judged on how it cares for its elderly. Equally importantly, a society can be judged on how it cares for expectant mothers and families with a newborn child. During the past number of years we had major changes in the make up of our workforce with the entry of a large number of women. In this context, how do we cater for child rearing?

It is important to acknowledge the need for flexibility on how a family deems it appropriate to rear a child. Initially the mother will be on maternity leave and the father may take paternity leave. We must become even more flexible in the workplace. Many large private companies and institutions such as banks and insurance companies must become more adaptable in how they view their employees and how their manage their affairs in the context of child rearing.

The changes in maternity leave and maternity benefit are progressive. However, we should acknowledge we still have room for manoeuvre. A person may be able to work one or two days a week and need two or three days off, or vice versa. Large companies, other than the Civil Service and the public service, do not seem to have grasped the idea of jobsharing, flexibility in the workplace and part-time work. We must also consider this in the context of maternity and paternity leave.

Regarding a matter I recently raised on an Adjournment Debate, in the context of what we want to achieve as a European country, if we are to discuss social welfare payments we must also discuss embracing immigrants. We must have a mature, calm and rational debate on this issue. I proposed a forum on immigration where people with views on the matter, including employers, employees, groups representing immigrant communities, education providers, trade unions and the churches could come together for a calm, rational and intelligent debate as a mature society.

We should be under no illusions that we have often had scaremongering on the immigration issue, with talk about masses of people coming here and wholesale abuse of the system. Our people are embracing and welcoming people here, both those in the work force and those in need. It is time we sat down for a mature, calm, rational and intelligent debate on all these issues. We should formulate public policy and opinion rather than putting our head in the sand and denying that some elements of our society have views contrary to the norm. This is an aside but in the context of social welfare we have all heard rumours of social welfare cheques buying cars and paying for holidays etc. There is a slightly sinister undercurrent to this about which I am concerned.

I commend the Bill in general and wish it the best of luck. Many of the proposed changes will have a real impact on people's lives.

See this speech in context