John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Social Welfare Bill 2007. I compliment the Ministers for Finance and Social and Family Affairs on the measures they have proposed in these more challenging economic times, when we are looking at an economic growth rate of approximately 3%. The social welfare budget will increase next year by almost €1 billion, to approximately €17 billion. It may have been easier not to have honoured previous commitments. I will respond to Deputy McHugh's comments about increases in the rate of inflation.

The substantial package of measures announced in the budget last week and clarified in the legislation before the House is worth approximately €17 billion, which represents a significant increase. During the general election campaign the Government gave a commitment to increase the State pension to €300 per week. The increase of €14 per week provided for in the budget which constitutes the first step in that process will bring the contributory State pension to €223 per week. The increase of €12 per week in the non-contributory pension will bring it to €212 per week.

Deputy McHugh asked whether the increase of €14 in the State pension was in line with inflation. I will put some figures before the House in order that Deputies can judge for themselves. The State pension has increased by over 50% since 2002, from €147.30 in 2002 to €223.30 today. As the rate of inflation during that period was not close to 50%, the increase in the pension is significant. Anybody who tries to argue otherwise does not understand the manner in which we have delivered year-on-year absolute increases. It is incorrect to state the Government has not taken account of inflation in recent years.

The Government also made a strong commitment to support qualified adults. A significant increase of €27 per week has been provided for qualified adults over the age of 66 years in the budget, bringing such pensions to €200 per week, or 94% of the figure we are aiming towards. The commitment given will be honoured in the interests of equity. Those who receive qualified adult payments are mainly women who, for historic reasons, did not have an opportunity to work when this country was much different. This is a question of equity and those payments are being honoured.

It is worth noting that the household income of 42,000 pensioner couples will increase this year by approximately €41 a week, or nearly 11%. The previous speaker indicated that the increases were not inflation-proofed. I do not know what the inflation out-turn will be next year but I do not think anyone in the House would expect inflation to be anything in the order of that figure. In money terms it means a pensioner couple, of which there are 42,000, or 84,000 people, will receive in excess of €23,000, an increase of €2,200.

The respite care grant has continued to be increased and this is to be welcomed. It increased in the previous budget from €1,200 to €1,500 and again in this budget it increased to €1,700. The Government has made a commitment that this figure will hit €3,000 in the lifetime of the Government. I am glad that budget by budget this is being achieved on an incremental basis. I have no doubt this commitment will be honoured. Approximately 48,000 people are in receipt of the respite care grant and not just those in receipt of the carer's allowance but also those in receipt of domiciliary care allowance.

I note from the Finance Bill that the income disregards in respect of those in receipt of carer's allowance has also been increased, both for single people and for couples, in the case of couples to €665 a week. A couple in receipt of an annual income of €60,000 can still qualify for a reduced rate of carer's allowance.

I concur with comments made by previous speakers about family income supplement. This is a very important payment which has not had a sufficient take-up. I often wonder if this is because it is a social welfare payment. It is a payment which I actively promote in my constituency. I am astounded at the best of times at the number of people who are unaware of it. It is a significant payment for many people. Every year this issue is debated at the Committee of Public Accounts with the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I am aware the Department has tried to advertise and promote the scheme but many people who may qualify for family income supplement do not ordinarily have dealings with the Department of Social and Family Affairs because they are in employment. They are only in receipt of children's allowance and they are not familiar with the offices of the Department. I suggest a more proactive approach be adopted by Revenue rather than the scheme being solely based in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There are tens of thousands of families who would benefit from the scheme and who are entitled to do so. The departmental officials report regularly to the Committee of Public Accounts but significant inroads are not being made and this is regrettable.

I refer to rent allowance. I do not wish to talk about the figures involved. People often say landlords do not accept rent allowance but in my constituency they do. We must be careful because the Department of Social and Family Affairs is a big player in the market and it has the potential to significantly affect prices.

I have noticed in recent times a change which may either be one of policy or a change at local level. Some time ago the majority of cheques paid for rent allowance were not made payable to the tenant but to the landlord. I have noted in the last months a number of instances where the cheques from the community welfare officer were made payable to the tenant. In some cases the tenant did not pay the landlord. This is a situation that did not exist previously and which needs to be examined as it undermines the integrity of the system if a cheque is being paid and is not being passed on. This will lead to additional problems. I concur with previous speakers that it is a difficult area. The system itself must be more clearcut.

See this speech in context