John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill, which gives legislative effect and implements some of the social welfare changes in budget 2007. I refer specifically to the one-parent family payment, child benefit and the respite care grant.

I compliment the Minister on his work to date, not necessarily on the spending but on some of the fundamental changes. Too often we stress the increases that are made. We should acknowledge that the Minister has tried to address some of the anomalies and poverty traps in the social welfare system.

It is worth noting that the social welfare budget for this year is in excess of €15 billion. One in three euro is spent on social welfare and this comprises a substantial increase over last year's expenditure. It is therefore worth examining the level of spending. Over 1 million people benefit directly from social welfare or, if one takes their dependants into account, 1.5 million. The scale is therefore quite substantial.

I take issue with Deputy Ring who said there are major increases in food, fuel and electricity prices. He is correct that there were fuel price increases, including in the cost of gas, but the Government and Minister in particular have introduced steps to alleviate them on a number of occasions. Such steps include the increase in the fuel allowance from €14 to €18 and the additional free units. It is incorrect to say people are now worse off. The rate of social welfare increases far exceeds the rate of inflation. Some of the increases amount to €20 per week. It is incorrect for Deputy Ring to argue the effect of the increases has been wiped out. It may partly be the case but people are now better off than they were before the increases were made. It is unfair to argue that the increases, which were the most significant ever, are not benefiting their recipients; it is simply not the case.

Let us consider the main changes in the social welfare system. It is worth reiterating that the target set by the Government regarding old age pensions was achieved. Following this year's budget, the contributory old age pension has increased to €209 and the non-contributory old age pension has increased to €200. Approximately 400,000 pensioners stand to benefit from the increases. Earnings for non-contributory pensioners have been doubled to €200 per week. The means disregard for the non-contributory pension has increased by €10 per week to €30, which benefits approximately 25,000 people. Significant changes have therefore been made.

The increase in the fuel allowance should be considered in the context of the additional units that were made available. I found it hard to listen to Deputy Ring's comments that all the benefits have been wiped out. He spoke about the increased cost of living and food prices, but the reality is that CSO figures on price increases do not match what he said. His comments were incorrect.

One must acknowledge the increase in child benefit, which increased by €10 in respect of both categories. One must also acknowledge the other changes that benefit children, including the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, which is used quite a lot during the summer.

The wider eligibility for the family income supplement is welcome. It is complicated to get people to engage in this issue and there is a real problem in that many eligible citizens do not avail of the supplement. However, it makes a real difference to those who receive it and it affords them the opportunity to re-enter the workforce. I do not know why all those who are potentially eligible for the supplement do not seem to get it. I have discussed this at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts and with officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We are missing the target with the supplement by a sizeable margin, which is regrettable. The scheme is very beneficial and positive but, for some reason, we are not getting through to all those who should and would benefit therefrom.

Over the past decade the role of carers has changed significantly and the commitment and support they have received from the Government has increased. The weekly payments to carers have been increased greatly and the qualifying conditions for the carer's allowance have also changed. There are 28,000 or 29,000 carers and their allowances have increased. Carers often tell me the respite care grant, which is made by way of a single payment in the summer, is very beneficial and gives them a range of options. The increase this year from €1,200 to €1,500 is very welcome. In addition to carers, a group of approximately 10,000 people qualifies for the grant. It represents a very good initiative and the money can be used for practical purposes. The Minister will be surprised to hear what people are doing with their grants.

From September of this year, those in receipt of certain other welfare payments who also provide full-time care will be able to retain their main welfare payment and receive another, subject to a means test, amounting to up to half the rate of the carer's allowance. For the first time, this will abolish the rule whereby one could not receive two welfare payments. Apart from the financial benefit and supports that this measure makes possible, it recognises the role of carers. It is not always a question of increases as one must also consider the direction of policy and support. An important step has been taken to recognise the role of carers and provide them with real support.

The family income supplement concerns lone parents in particular, as I note in my busy constituency office. If lone parents try to re-enter the workforce while in private rented accommodation, their rent supplement is cut, after which they must obtain the family income supplement to compensate. This seems to be cumbersome and comprises a somewhat vicious circle. Lone parents are entitled to the benefits but they do not seem to be joined up very easily. There should be a better process such that when they apply for the family income supplement, a social welfare officer could sit down with them and examine the cumulative effects. Rather than having to make many applications and changes, the applicant's social welfare officer should state he or she will be entitled to a specified family income supplement and a general package. At present, the benefits are granted on a standalone basis. The system is quite complicated and perhaps this is why people are not applying for the family income supplement.

It is important that the rent supplement does not increase the price of rented accommodation in the Dublin market. At present it needs to be reviewed because it is simply insufficient to match Dublin market prices and cover costs. This is proving to be a problem. I raise this issue reluctantly because I am conscious the rate specified by the Department can drive the market. Families who rent properties for €1,200, of which they receive a percentage in rent allowance, are being told when landlords raise the rent to either renegotiate or find alternative accommodation. However, they are often unable to find alternative accommodation in the same price category, with the result that many have to make up the difference by paying cash from their payments. This is somewhat of a bind but I do not know when the figures will be reviewed.

Certain categories, such as single people and lone parents, seem to face greater difficulties in terms of renting properties and are struggling to find accommodation. A review of property prices in Dublin is needed because we are in danger of returning to the black economy. Individuals are paying a proportion of their rent in cash because they are not eligible for anything if they tell the social welfare office their rent is higher than the guide price. I raise this issue reluctantly because I am aware of the effect of increases in the rent supplement in terms of driving rents up. However, over the past several months, I have encountered increasing numbers of people who are struggling because of their dependence on rent allowances.

An anomaly has arisen in respect of the contributory State pension. The people who are now reaching the pension age of 66 worked in a very different era. When women had children, for example, they had few options other than to leave employment. To qualify for the minimum contributory State pension, an average of ten payments is required based on a retirement age of 66. If a person began work at the age of 16 or 18 and made 400 contributions over eight years, the period would be 50 years and the average would be eight payments. However, if the same person worked over a 40 year period, the average would be ten payments. Therefore, depending on when they started work, two individuals who worked for eight years and paid 400 contributions might not both qualify for the minimum level. One person might qualify for the minimum level with an average of ten payments because the 400 contributions are divided by a working life of 40 years. However, the person who left school at the age of 16 does not qualify because the average is divided by 50. The issue, which was brought to my attention recently by one of my constituents, appears unfair and anomalous and I ask the Minister to investigate it further.

Deputy Ring spoke about computerisation. It is important that the Department of Social and Family Affairs develops close links with the Revenue Commissioners. I am aware of two cases of social welfare recipients who returned to the workforce but continued to receive lone parent's allowance despite paying PAYE and PRSI. The payments continued over a number of years, with the result that the women are now repaying more than €20,000. Even though the women are unknown to each other, neither could understand why the Department did not know they were paying taxes. They did not distinguish between the Department and the Revenue Commissioners but regarded them collectively as the State.

I acknowledge their responsibility to keep the Department informed but, given that tax was being taken from them, they could not understand why the relevant information was not automatically shared. While there may be limits in terms of data protection legislation, that type of automatic transfer of information should be in place in this age of computerisation to protect social welfare recipients, who are often not fully aware of their obligations, from building up overpayments. The women concerned honestly believed that the Department and the Revenue Commissioners had integrated communications in place.

I am aware the Department investigates fraud, which is important because people who fraudulently acquire social welfare payments take from those who really need the money. Officials in the Department should be complimented in that regard. However, it is worth investigating the issue from the point of view of building practical working relationships with other providers, such as local authorities and the Garda, so that information can be shared in a timely manner. We have all received anecdotal evidence of these issues but structured procedures should be established because, while my constituents regularly warn me when someone receives fraudulent payments, it would appear that other providers have similar information. However, the operations by which the Department detects fraud are better left unexplained.

I commend the Minister on the reforms he has made in terms of removing poverty traps and anomalies. I note in particular the extension of the free travel scheme on an all-island basis. Although the scheme is funded by the Department for Social and Family Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was also interested in it as an element in the peace process. It is welcome that it will be introduced over the next couple of months. I understand people must apply for the scheme but, from the point of view of a changing Ireland, it is a welcome development.

See this speech in context