Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)

I propose to share my time with Deputies Tom Hayes and Feighan. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008. Budget 2009 includes no imaginative proposals on how to get people off social welfare and back to work, particularly through retraining and education. The Bill is a missed opportunity to make changes to the back to education allowance so that people do not have to receive a social welfare payment for 12 months before they can retrain or up-skill. Presumably, the Government takes the view it costs too much but this is false as it will save money in the long term to see people retrained for the modern economy.

A person in a low-income job wishing to return to education is entitled to only €4,131 per year in educational support whereas a person from a social welfare background is entitled to €25,266 per year. Over a three year degree course this leads to a €63,489 disparity in essential support. This anomaly limits the incentive for low-paid workers to return to full-time third level education to improve their skills and their future job prospects.

People who want to escape the low-pay trap are being penalised for working. When one takes up a degree course as an adult learner the level of support depends on what one did in the year before taking up the place on the course. One is disqualified from the back to education allowance if one worked in the year before taking a college place, no matter what the income level.

I wish to comment on an issue I have encountered repeatedly in recent times. I refer to the plight of self-employed people who find themselves out of work. Last week, I spoke to a small-time self-employed person who has not worked since 20 June last. When he applied for the jobseeker's allowance, he was refused it. He has been told he is not entitled to unemployment assistance. He has a wife, who works at home, and a four year old child. He does not have any income because he cannot receive supplementary welfare allowance. Any application for the allowance would be assessed on the basis of his 2006 earnings.

The earnings of self-employed people in 2006 are totally different from their earnings for the first six months of 2008. I suggest that the 2006 income should be totally irrelevant. The man in question is depending on his extended family to keep him, his wife and his child in food. Those who are assisting him have indicated that there is a limit to what they can do. In fairness to them, they have supported him greatly. When I spoke to community care officials about this case, I was told they cannot do anything about the matter. They mentioned that they are encountering more and more cases of this type. It seems that self-employed people and those running small businesses are most likely to be in dire straits.

I wish to speak about the bureaucratic problems I encountered when I tried to obtain unemployment assistance for a man. It would probably be kind to refer to him as semi-literate. He was unable to provide the level of information required of him, or cope with the level of bureaucracy demanded in his case. He was unable to obtain supplementary welfare allowance because he had been refused unemployment assistance. He has been forced to beg on the streets. The Garda asked him if he would contact community welfare officers, but they were unable to do anything for him. When he applied for unemployment assistance, he was asked to provide more information. He did not comprehend what was asked of him and was therefore unable to meet the various requirements. There must be some way of ensuring that people in such circumstances are helped. The various bureaucratic limitations in the system should be removed so it can respond to such people. I ask the Minister to examine this matter.

I imagine that the amount of people on non-contributory pensions is small and the people involved are now quite elderly. I expect that the cost of such pensions is decreasing substantially each year, as a result of the wastage associated with the life cycle. It would not the cost the State anything to introduce the change I am recommending in this area. I propose that we should give the few people on the means-tested non-contributory pension who have some means an automatic right to the pension. Perhaps we can abandon the non-contributory pension in such cases.

I refer to people who did not have an opportunity to pay PRSI when they worked up to the age of 65. The cohort of people who did not have ten years of contributions was initially quite large. The rules were then changed so that a 50% payment could be made to those with 50% of the necessary contributions. The Government should recognise that the people in question, who are well into their 80s, have played their part over the years. It should re-examine the manner in which the non-contributory pension is paid to them.

This country's 161,000 carers work 3.7 million hours every week. It is estimated that their work saves the State €2.5 billion each year. However, less than one in six carers qualifies for the carer's allowance. This year's budget provides for a minimal increase in the allowance. The increase, which barely keeps pace with inflation, will do nothing to help family carers who depend on the allowance to cope with the rising cost of care in the home. The weekly rate of carer's allowance currently paid to those under the age of 66 is €214, or €4.59 less than the median income poverty line of €218.59. The Government promised to review supports for family carers in the national strategy for carers, which was supposed to have been published by the end of 2007. Almost 12 months later, it has not yet been published.

It looks increasingly likely that the strategy will be a "yellow pack" document that does not address the key concerns identified by the groups that represent carers. The groups have called for the role of this country's more than 5,000 young carers to be recognised and supported. They want adequate income supports to be provided to carers. They have suggested that carer payments be linked to labour market rates. The groups want the Government to ensure that the minimum level of carer's allowance is not less than the minimum wage. They have demanded an adjustment in the income disregard used during the assessment of means for carer's allowance.

The carers' groups believe that the individual carer's means should be the only matter considered in the means test. They are concerned about the rules governing the ability of carers to earn income. They believe that carers should be permitted to engage in employment for more than 15 hours a week. The groups argue that PRSI contributions should be awarded to carers on the same basis as paid contributions, so that carers are entitled to the State contributory pension when they become eligible for pension purposes.

The 2006 census found that there are 5,433 carers between the ages of 15 and 19 in this country. Some 700 of the carers in question work between 29 and 43 hours each week. This year's budget did nothing to recognise the role of such carers. The Government promised, in the programme for Government agreed last year and the Towards 2016 social partnership agreement, that it would publish the national strategy for carers before the end of 2009. The delay in publishing the strategy clearly demonstrates the political inertia that exists in regard to carers. It exposes the Government's supposed commitment in this area as no more than lip service to the concerns of carers. If the Government is unwilling to publish its blueprint for addressing the provision of services, supports and entitlements to carers, it is clear that it is not truly committed to making any real improvement in the lives of carers in the near future.

I raised the issue of energy poverty during a Private Members' debate in the House some weeks ago. There is a strong causal relationship between low incomes, poor housing, energy poverty and adverse health. One of this country's shortcomings is that it does not have an official register of energy poverty. Therefore, we do not know the extent of this problem. However, we know it is a serious problem. According to Sustainable Energy Ireland, 227,000 households experience some degree of fuel poverty. The impact of fuel poverty ranges from uncomfortable living conditions to more serious negative effects such as poor physical or mental health, increased debt and a decline in the physical condition of houses. In 2006, the Central Statistics Office reported that almost 6% of the population had to go without heating at some stage in 2005 due to lack of money. Research has shown that people, particularly older people, are dying because they are unable to heat their homes sufficiently.

A strong correlation has been identified between fuel poverty, the standard of housing and the 2,000 excess winter deaths which occur in Ireland each year. It has been calculated that Ireland has the second highest rate of excess winter deaths among a sample of countries in Europe. Poorer people spend more on energy because they live in energy inefficient homes. As they spend so much on energy, scarce resources are not available for other necessities such as food, clothing and transport. Lone parents and older people are much more likely to suffer energy poverty than any other group. In 2004-05, those in the lowest income bracket spent an average of 13% of their disposable income on energy, while the highest earners spent just 1.7% of their incomes on energy. Last winter, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul gave €3.4 million in supports to people struggling in their homes.

See this speech in context