Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)

I did not speak on the previous Social Welfare Bill but when we speak in the House, we rarely give credit to those who help us in our work. Through the Minister, I thank all of the officials of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, especially those who deal with parliamentary questions and Deputies' inquiries because they make our lives easier. They are always helpful and available to us. I ask the Minister to pass on these sentiments.

I am not privy to the inner workings of preparing a budget but presume in his discussions with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs either sets out the funding his Department requires for individual items or requests an overall amount. When the budget was announced on 5 December 2007, it was evident that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs was satisfied he would meet the demands made of him by various Members on both sides of the House and interest groups. We could argue over many aspects of the budget as, from a political perspective, everyone has pet projects and payments they wish to see made. These wishes may differ from those of the Minister but there was a general sense of satisfaction with the allocations made in the budget. Those in receipt of social welfare payments were able to plan ahead because of the changes made. This is where the matter of value for money enters the equation and why I sought a time allocation on this issue from the Labour Party Whip, Deputy Stagg. He was also involved in what I am about to raise.

When the Minister examined various payments, be it lone parent allowance or the non-contributory pension, I am sure a mechanism was put in place to determine the percentage increase that should be granted. This was thought to represent value for money as welfare recipients would benefit. However, in County Kildare one swipe of a pen saw every penny of the increases erased. The local authority there responded to the budget by raising the rent payable for all householders in local authority accommodation, including those on social welfare, by up to €17. The effort and time spent by the Minister in trying to ensure people would receive as much as possible in the budget were eradicated with one swipe of a pen. The extra money he allocated ended up back in the system. I disagree with some of his budget allocations but that is not my point. Is there a mechanism to ensure local authorities cannot eradicate the Minister's work for recipients of social welfare payments?

Some time ago I followed up on this issue with another local authority and was informed that it had received a letter, circular HRT 3/2002, from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Section 4 referred to rents for local authority dwellings and stated:

It is important that authorities should ensure that rent increases do not absorb an excessive amount of increase of income of tenants on low incomes dependent on social welfare payments and in particular on old age pensions. As a general guideline it is considered that no more than a 15% increase in such pension income should be absorbed by an increase in rent.

This seems logical to me as the Minister made an effort to get as big a slice of the budget cake as possible for recipients of social welfare payments — they could then plan ahead in using the money. It was never the Minister's intention that one swipe of a pen would see local authorities take back increases in payments and more besides.

This evening I was in my office when an old age pensioner from Newbridge telephoned. She is 77 years of age and lives on her own. She called to tell me that she was unable to get by on what she had as her rent had gone up by €17. My colleague, Deputy Stagg, who discussed this matter also, and I are to ask the Labour Party spokesperson, Deputy Shortall, to table an amendment to the Bill to see how the Minister can protect increases in social welfare payments in order that they cannot be eradicated with the swipe of a pen. I do not know how it will be framed but she will try. If local authorities believe the only way they can raise money is to wait for an increase in social welfare payments in the budget and then increase rents for local authority accommodation, an amendment to the Bill is necessary. It is a crying shame that public representatives in County Kildare have received such calls on this matter. Can the circular from which I quoted be applied to the circumstances I have raised? Can we ensure a certain percentage of increases in social welfare payments will be protected for the good of the recipient, rather than the financial upkeep of the local authority?

On a similar point, the Minister granted an increase in fuel allowance in the budget but, because local authorities take into account a household's total income, this allowance is included as a factor in deciding the rent a person should pay. The same goes for the living alone allowance. The increases in these payments were granted for specific purposes. For example, a person telephoned me today seeking to have the fuel allowance apply throughout the year but the allowance is for fuel and should not end up with a local authority. I ask the Minister and his officials to consider how increases in social welfare payments can be ring-fenced to be used only for the purpose for which they were originally made. I understand people must pay rent to local authorities but it should never be the case that a Minister's efforts to secure a slice of the budget cake for social welfare recipients can be eradicated in one blow.

There is an anomaly that relates to the lone parent allowance. A person who had lived with his partner for 28 years came to me when his partner died and it emerged he was not entitled to lone parent's allowance for his two foster children. Had this individual a child of his own with his partner he would have been entitled to the allowance for his foster children but because he does not have a child of his own he now lives on the funding he receives from the community welfare officer. He must find extra funding to care for his two foster children. When he sought mortgage relief, he was told he would only receive 50% owing to his situation.

I cannot understand either decision and will write to the Minister outlining the details of the case in the hope that a solution can be found. A protective mechanism is needed to ensure the fruits of his battles for increased funding are not eroded in one fell swoop by local authorities taking money from senior citizens in receipt of social welfare payments.

See this speech in context