Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I will get to that in a moment. Child benefit has been seen by many as the plank to remove children from poverty, with this being repeated at today's committee meeting by CORI and the Combat Poverty Agency. The policy is repeated in the Government's current national children's strategy and the social partnership document, Towards 2016. By imposing habitual residence on child benefit, the Government is contradicting its own policy and strategies and once again demonstrating that it has no grasp of the reality facing people. It is unfair in circumstances where the children's parents can do nothing but wait for the State to decide their status, with many parents having to wait years for these decisions.

In his reply to my parliamentary question on 4 December 2007, the Minister referred to the examination of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child undertaken by the Government when introducing the habitual residence condition. The Minister selectively made reference to Article 26 and the discretionary manner in which the State is entitled to provide a social security benefit in respect of any child in the jurisdiction. He made no reference to Article 2, which expressly refers to the obligation of the State to prevent discrimination based on the status of the child's parents.

Further, he failed to reply to my reference to Article 3, which stipulates that the "best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration" in all actions concerning children, including those undertaken by social welfare institutions and administrative authorities.

I have acknowledged that the State provides food and shelter for people in direct provision but the food is often not suitable, there is no choice and it is difficult to cater for a large amount of people from so many diverse cultures and backgrounds. Parents are not allowed to decide what their children should eat and this decision is made for them. The shelter provided is often inadequate and conditions overcrowded. They are sometimes in locations where services are inaccessible for those who cannot afford transport. I am told of situations where residents of a hostel are forced to share one bathroom between 15 to 20 people. If the State is claiming to fulfil its obligations under the UN Convention on Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments, by providing food and shelter for people who are in the asylum process, then at the very least it should ensure the standard of this provision is sufficient.

I am disappointed the direct provision allowance is not being increased. Asylum seekers and those seeking humanitarian leave to remain, continue to struggle and try to cope with the same amount that has been granted to them since the introduction of the system despite the continual rise in the cost of living.

As regards the habitual residence condition in general there is still inconsistency in decisions by deciding officers on the issue and many seem to think that the two-year stipulation is still in force. However, section 246 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended by the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007, states:

Notwithstanding the presumption in subsection (1), [that a person must be resident in Ireland or the common travel area for a continuous period of two years] a deciding officer or the Executive, when determining whether a person is habitually resident in the State, shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case including, in particular, the following:

(a) the length and continuity of residence in the State or in any other particular country;

(b) the length and purpose of any absence from the State;

(c) the nature and pattern of the person's employment;

(d) the person's main centre of interest; and

(e) the future intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances.

In light of this I would ask the Minister to seek clarity from his departmental officials as to whether this amendment needs to be made clearer as I believe the two year-rule is still being applied in decisions relating to the HRC despite Ireland being a signatory to the European Code of Social Security. Regarding the two-year habitual residency requirement, in its 32nd report to the Council of Europe on Ireland's compliance with the European Code of Social Security, the Government stated at page 9:

Ireland is aware that the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice precludes reliance on any specific duration of residence [for example two years] for the purposes of establishing habitual residence and has ensured that no such specific period is the determining factor in any HRC decision.

Greater clarity is needed in this area, and an audit of decisions should be made to ensure Ireland is operating the system accurately as different officers seem to be taking different decisions.

In discussing the needs of carers, I am at all times conscious of the great contribution they make not only to the person for whom they are caring but also to society as a whole in addition to the considerable cost savings they make for the State. Every week 3.5 million hours are worked by 161,000 family carers, yet less than one in six of these qualifies for the carer's allowance. The Carers Association estimates that the work of Ireland's family carers is saving the State more than €2.1 billion per annum. While I welcome that progress was made in 2007, the pace of progress has been too slow.

We need to understand better the practical issues that affect carers and we need to develop new concepts that recognise and support them. We need to avoid the types of incredible, inexplicable delays that arise when a different family member steps in to take over the carer role and to share the burden. Often the person being cared for needs to be reassessed even though his or her need for care has not changed. We need to ensure that respite grants are used for respite, in other words that there are systems and capacity, in both the social welfare and health systems, to allow carers have a real holiday. Otherwise the grant is simply a payment once a year to make up for the inadequacy of the weekly rate.

The Minister admitted to me in the Dáil last week that the much-promised national carers' strategy, which was to be completed by the end of 2007, will not be completed on time. It is clear that it will barely be started by the end of this year not to mention completed. In order to truly acknowledge and value the work of carers we need to have a national strategy that will identify their needs, decide how best to address them and ensure that adequate funding is put in place to do this.

I find it hard to be excited about this year's social welfare proposals entitled "Recognising Carers" and it is clear the Government has not adequately listened to their needs. While I accept the rates of payment for all those who are eligible has increased by €14 per week, few of the 161,000 are actually eligible. While I accept the income disregard has been given a small increase, why is the means test still applied so stringently to the income of a carer's spouse?

The budget once again seems to have blanketed over the issue of young carers with no provisions or focus on them anywhere to be seen. Caring for someone is a highly responsible role that can often impact on the young carer's education and childhood. It is thought that approximately 3,000 carers under the age of 18 are carrying out caring responsibilities. This group of carers continually get no recognition from the Government whatsoever. The Carers Association, in its pre-budget submission, highlighted the need to carry out research into the issues and effects of caring on young carers and introduce an appropriate programme of in-home supports. In an effort to allow young people be young people and take a break from caring so they can enjoy what should be the best years of their lives, measures need to be put in place to provide specific services and tailored packages for young carers. This Government has let yet another year slip by without doing anything for young carers. The Minister never even mentioned them as a key issue for the strategy in his speech today.

We need to begin grappling more effectively with the realities facing many women who needed and still need to work part-time or intermittently because of the important duties they undertake as mothers and homemakers. They also undertake a disproportionate share of caring. After a lifetime of juggling work and home duties they get penalised by social welfare average contribution conditions that are severely outdated. The situation is getting worse not better for those women who tried to put a little in a pension plan when they were working because the pensions system only really serves those who can afford to put large amounts of money in, or those in the know who can have the law altered for their benefit. People with fragmented pension plans face all kinds of difficulty when they retire and so-called advisers are powerless, or maybe just not interested, when the insurance companies insist on penalising these women in numerous ways.

One simple thing the Minister could do, and there a precedent for it, would be to revise the alternative average contribution test to apply from 1988 when PRSI for the self-employed was introduced. The concept of using an average based on relatively recent years was adopted in 1992 mainly for administrative reasons. I believe the cost was negligible when administrative savings, increased tax take and switching from means-tested pensions were put in the balance.

I mention these matters to illustrate the absence of strategic thinking affecting, in particular, women and carers. I hope to develop these themes in the weeks and months ahead. Perhaps the Minister could show some initiative by agreeing to amend the Bill to begin reversing some of the perverse effects of the 1953 doctrinaire thinking about women's roles in society by agreeing to change the social welfare contribution test for pensions from a lifelong test to a test that evaluates a person's more recent attachment to the workforce where that would be more equitable. He could start by agreeing to use 1988 instead of 1979 immediately and then we could consider the implications, in cost terms, as well as equity in result, of taking a more daring approach such as having an average test based on the past ten years where, at a minimum, the person can demonstrate that he or she — I am equally concerned about men losing their rights because they had to emigrate or assist on family farms etc. — undertook substantial periods in homemaking or in assisting family businesses and were thus unable to pay social insurance on their own account.

Regarding making contributions, to show how badly the system can deal with individual incidences I have details of a particular case of which I believe the Minister is aware. A gentleman worked for a four-week period from 31 January 1961 in response to a request from his sister who was a nurse. There was a crisis as a result of the influenza outbreak and he came in for four weeks at a relatively young age to help in the hospital. He started working officially with his PRSI record in 1987. However, his State contributory pension has been reduced as a result of what he did in those four weeks in 1961. It is a nonsense that the system should penalise an individual based on something he did for the benefit of society as a whole.

In a time of wealth for so many in our society, large numbers of disabled people continue to experience a lower standard of living and are at a greater risk of poverty than the general public. Despite two recent pieces of disability legislation, many people with disabilities are still waiting for essential services and supports. A cost of disability payment would have made significant inroads in addressing this issue and would prove an important anti-poverty measure, designed to offset the genuine extra cost of a disability. In its pre-budget submission, the Disability Federation of Ireland advocated the introduction of a €40 payment for all persons with disability. However, once again they were left wanting. The introduction of such of a payment would have proven to be an important additional financial support for people with disability. This is an issue that will not go away as the cost of equipment and supports continue to rise.

People with disability cannot be expected to do without these vital supports and proposals must be put in place to work to ensure that they receive the highest standard of support and the most appropriate and cost effective delivery.

With regard to supports for people living in rented accommodation, there is a strong need to address these supports to reflect the reality of the true cost of accommodation.

Under the current system, rent supplement is paid in arrears to recipients and this puts them on an uneven footing with other tenants, who are able to provide their prospective landlords with a deposit and the first month's rent in advance. A landlord will choose someone who can pay immediately rather than the person who is on rent supplement. Furthermore, a landlord should not be obliged to wait for the rent to be paid in arrears, which is the case with a rent supplement tenancy.

Some tenants are forced to top up their rent with additional payments to the landlord, which is a breach of the conditions attached to the payment of rent supplement. However, they often have no option but to do so and in some cases they risk losing the tenancy if they refuse to do so and this action will jeopardise payment of their rent supplement.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has carried out a review of the supplement in 2007 and plans to do so again in 2008. However, it is not enough simply to review the situation; a reality check needs to be taken. There is a significant and evident gap in the supplement caps and the market rent, which the Minister cannot continue to ignore.

We cannot allow tenants to continue breaching the terms of their rent supplement to provide the basic entitlement of a home for themselves. Having questioned the Minister on this in the House recently, I was disappointed by his lack of response and his inability to provide a specific answer to my questions as to when he planned to initiate real changes.

This is an issue on which I will continue to press him as I believe the current system does not address the needs of the tenants nor does it provide real and adequate support for them. The current system must be altered to provide for the advance payment of the supplement while the supplement caps much reflect the true and real market cost of accommodation.

Homelessness remains a significant problem in today's society. One need only walk out the door of Leinster House and within 200 yards one will encounter several homeless people. There have even been stories of people being forced to sleep in wheelie bins in city centres around the country.

We all remember the tragic death of Kevin Fitzpatrick, who took shelter in a commercial wheelie bin and whose body was later found in a refuse recycling centre in Limerick after he was tossed into and crushed in a compacting lorry during collection.

Today the Simon Community launched a report stating that 55 homeless people died on our streets last year. Last Sunday's Sunday Independent reported that in the past four weeks, four homeless men died on the streets of this city. I commend the work of organisations such as the Simon Community in providing services for homeless people. However, without sustained spending in programmes to tackle homelessness, as well as changes in rental supplement and far greater examination of the shelters to ensure they comply with basic health and safety standards, there is a strong possibility that the number of homeless people will increase due to pressures at the lower end of the housing market both in the rental and home ownership sectors.

Focus Ireland, the housing and homeless charity, has said that budget 2008 is a missed opportunity to take further action to increase the provision of social housing and to tackle growing inequalities in Irish society. It has maintained that the budget has failed to live up to previous ambitions as outlined by the Taoiseach at the launch of the Government's national action plan on social inclusion earlier this year where he said an ambitions agenda for social change which will enable us to make a decisive impact on poverty in the years ahead has been put in place by the Government. I have to ask once again where exactly this ambitious agenda is as it is certainly not contained in this Bill.

I spoke on the difficulties being experienced by people accessing the rent supplement scheme, which the Minister recently described in a reply to a question from me as being one of the most important supports provided for homeless people through the social welfare system. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society and it must be pointed out that they would not be homeless if they could access these services. Many have other problems besides being homeless which have contributed to their situation and these must also be addressed in tandem with their housing situation.

While the recent increases in social welfare are at least in line with inflation, they are still not enough to lift the most marginalised out of poverty and they contrast with the wage increases which the Government recently adopted. The Minister must see that there are many changes that need to be made not only in income support levels but in the operation of his Department and the entire social welfare system. I urge him to consider some of the points I have made and to put people and their genuine needs at the heart of this service rather than having a service-centred operation.

See this speech in context