Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I too look forward to a constructive debate. While I welcome this Bill in so far as it provides for increases in social welfare payments, the rate of increase only matches the increases in the cost of living in the past 12 months and falls short of the increase in wages. This debate is an opportunity to test the Government's promises against its delivery, the reality against the rhetoric.

I begin by referring to the announcements that got the biggest cheers on budget day, even if they were somewhat less enthusiastic than last year. Like others, I welcome the increases that have been announced. However, when one compares the rate of increase to the rate of inflation, it is clear they will be swallowed up almost immediately. The increase of €12 in the non-contributory State pension and €14 in the contributory pension reflect an increase of 6% and 6.7%, respectively. Inflation is running at almost 5%, however, which shows how small an increase pensioners will enjoy.

It is important to remind the Government of its election promise, just six short months ago, to increase pensions to €300 per week over the lifetime of the Government. This promise was reiterated in the agreed programme for Government. Last Tuesday in the Dáil, however, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, when speaking about the agreed programme for Government as it affects carers and the national carers strategy, told us that completing the strategy by the end of 2007 was a "target that was unrealistic". In the wake of last week's budget, we can see how much of the remainder of the programme has also proven to be unrealistic. In the case of increases in the old age pension, the Government has fallen behind on its commitment at its first test. When one compares the increases our old age pensioners have received to the huge increases the Cabinet recently awarded itself — but now seems to have postponed for a brief period — we see just how sincere it is in assisting and caring for the less well-off in society.

I welcome the increase in the qualified adult allowance. Again, however, this breaches the commitment the Government set for itself when it committed to completing the scheme this year rather than merely taking another step. I urge the Minister to reconsider this decision and to complete the move to bring the payment to the level of the State pension. I also urge him to ensure that all so-called qualified adults, of which there are some 123,000, the vast majority being women, can avail of this payment independently via direct access rather than having to receive it from their spouse. The current situation, where it is the husband who must sign a form to allow the payment go directly to his wife, has caused hardship for some vulnerable women and is a practice that has no place in modern society.

The failure of the Government to offer any increase in the fuel allowance, notwithstanding the provision for an additional week, ignores the rising costs of fuel and home heating oil. In effect, it ignores the reality of the lives of many of our elderly. The Minister should talk to some of those dependent on the fuel allowance to heat their homes and he will realise just how little can be purchased for €18 per week.

An allowance that was subject to no changes in this Bill is the death grant. To avail of this grant, a person must have paid contributions. I have been asked by several bereaved persons in recent times to urge the Minister to review this, particularly for the benefit of those who never had the option of making contributions because of health reasons or special needs. The death grant is not available when such people die as adults and I ask the Minister to consider this matter.

I welcome the increase in the widowed parent's grant, which is important. In light of this, I draw attention to the living alone allowance. I have been told by many people, particularly during the election campaign, that this has not been increased since its inception. A similar case to that of the widowed parent grant can be made for this allowance, although no children are involved.

Where a spouse has died, people have indicated that the only difference in expenditure is on clothes for the person and a slight decrease in amounts spent on food. The cost of lighting, heating, electricity, gas, insurance, car tax and household furnishings is the same whether one person or two people live in a house. The living alone allowance deserves far more attention than it has received in the past number of years.

It was interesting to read the CORI justice analysis and critique of the budget; members of that group were before a committee today. It stated that the momentum in reducing poverty has been lost for the coming year because of the failure to address the working poor issue, together with the failure to increase the qualifying adult social welfare rate to make it equal to 100% of the claimant's rate, as I have already mentioned, and the failure to do substantially more to tackle child poverty.

It is important to remind the Minister, Deputy Cullen, of the Government's commitments in Towards 2016, which was launched with much fanfare last year. In it, the Government committed through the national agreement to ensuring that every person had sufficient income to live life with dignity, and that social services were accessible, appropriate and adequate for all. With the failure to keep up the momentum on the anti-poverty strategy, I question the Government's commitment to achieving this aim. Will it be consigned to being just another unrealistic target?

In terms of the Bill as it affects children, under the Government one in nine children live in consistent poverty. It is important to note that children are not considered poor in their own right but poor as part of a family. If we are to really tackle child poverty, families must also be supported. The reality of child poverty can mean children could go for a full day without a substantial meal or being cold because parents are unable to afford heat in the home.

The €2 increase in the qualified child allowance would not even allow parents to provide one more nourishing meal for their children per week. The increase is less than half the rate of inflation, so effectively it is not an increase at all. The Government has missed an opportunity to target payment support to children who are living either with welfare-dependent parents or parents on low income, despite their commitment in their programme for Government. Will the Government really tolerate a position where children go to bed hungry, cold and malnourished because they have failed to target supports to those who need them most? I do not see any coherence in the Government's plans to tackle child and family poverty.

The Minister must agree that the family income support is a key component in attempts to support families at work on low pay. It is generally accepted that take-up of family income supplement has been a long-standing problem, with research undertaken by the ESRI suggesting that fewer than one in three of potentially eligible claimants actually receive FIS. This supplement was introduced in 1984 and it is stunning that, 22 years later, the Government has said that the take-up has remained a fraction of the potential for all that period, with the previous Minister indicating that neither he nor his officials had any real ideas on why 60% or more of eligible families were not receiving FIS. The precise words of the former Minister and Cabinet colleague of the current Minister were, "There is no definitive explanation as to why a significant group of people with a potential average entitlement of approximately €113 per week apparently decide not to apply." The Minister should outline his own views on this in his conclusion.

Some 40,000 families in this country are not receiving FIS, 40,000 families who are entitled to a FIS amount of €5,000 or more per annum. Many of them may be forced to rely on dig-outs from friends and families or, worse still, money lenders. This is unacceptable and it is a terrible indictment of the Government that the problem has persisted for more than 20 years.

The amount saved by the State by not having a proactive system is enormous. I note from statements of the previous Minister that automatic take-up was beyond the ICT capabilities of the Revenue Commissioners and his Department. Will the Minister ask the senior official recently appointed to his Department to use her knowledge of the Revenue system and administration to propose urgent measures to increase take-up?

Could he consider setting a target period of three years to achieve an 85% take-up rate? Will he examine with the Minister of Finance options to combine FIS claim information with tax return forms? This would solve two problems in one stroke by getting more people to make tax returns and ensure more people get FIS, while reducing the amount of paper in the two systems.

I welcome the Government's decision to increase the early child care supplement by €100 per year, even if it is not until April. When this supplement was announced by the Government in December 2005, the intention was to help parents meet the cost of child care in Ireland. From the time of the announcement, the Government seemed unaware of the implications of the payment being linked to child benefit and, therefore, being made available for children not living within Ireland. It is very important to point out that the supplement was introduced as a child care cost measure designed to meet the costs of child care in this country and the Government failed to introduce a special provision to ring fence the money for the cost of child care in Ireland.

We all remember the Cabinet confusion surrounding the cost of this scheme for children who are not resident in Ireland. When asked by Deputy Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach said in January 2006 that the cost would be €1 million. Some ten days later, the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs stated it would cost €2.7 million by the end of the year, but two and a half months later the then Minister of State with responsibility for children indicated it would cost €10.8 million by the end of the year. Another month later, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs stated the cost could be up to €4 million per year, with the Taoiseach suggesting the next day the cost could be €9.5 million. These were five different figures from three different Government members.

It is clear the Government does not intend to review the scheme and make it only available to families coping with the cost of child care in Ireland. This means substantial amounts of taxpayers' money, which could be paid to parents struggling on a daily basis with expensive child care costs, is leaving the country and going to families who do not have to meet these substantial costs.

I have no difficulty whatever with the payment being made to all children under the age of six, of any nationality, resident in this country and whose parents have to cope with the cost of child care in Ireland. Had this been done, at least an extra €27 million would be available to parents of children living in this country availing of child care.

The Minister informed me in a reply to a parliamentary question in October of this year that a total of 20,000 claims from EU nationals from non-resident children were being processed. I accept that not all may be eligible, but this represents a significant number of claims which do not meet the intended purpose of the supplement.

The Minister will be aware of my views on the continued imposition by the Government of a habitual residence condition on children of asylum seekers living in Ireland. Every pre-budget submission, including one from the Combat Poverty Agency, received by the Minister and I decried this shameful practice. I raised this issue in a priority question with the Minister last week and his response showed a clear lack of understanding of the reality for the estimated 3,000 children living in these circumstances.

The Minister cannot ignore the fact that the effect of denying child benefit to these children is very visible and immediate. It is every parent's wish to protect and look after their children, but parents of these children cannot even provide for the basic requirements, such as suitable food and dietary supplements.

See this speech in context