Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Bill. I have listened to many of my Fianna Fáil colleagues outline the various deficiencies, the welcome improvements and the areas where there is an urgent need to improve schemes and rates of payment. My party spokesperson, Deputy Willie O'Dea, dealt in detail in his contribution with all facets of the legislation. I welcome his contribution, in which he has highlighted the great pressure on families, lone parents and pensioners living on their own.

I welcome the increase in the State pension. Naturally, we would all like to see a high rate of payment, if at all possible. We must have incremental increases over the coming years to try to restore or improve the previous rate. I also welcome the increase in the primary rates of other welfare payments plus the 85% increase in the Christmas bonus, which is so important to people at a time when there are extra demands on individuals and families.

I am very glad the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, responded positively to an engagement my colleague Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, other Deputies and I had with him in regard to the farm assist scheme. Like me, the Minister of State who is present, Deputy Joe McHugh, will have many constituents who are small-scale farmers earning a negligible income, if any at all, from their farm businesses. The farm assist scheme was introduced in the late 1990s through initiatives of the then Fianna Fáil Government. It was a very welcome scheme to try to deal with the unfortunate circumstances obtaining in many parts of the country. Very low incomes were being generated by so many farmers. Unfortunately, the changes and the abolition of the disregards in the 2013 and 2014 budgets had a considerable adverse impact on recipients of the farm assist scheme payment. In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, when Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív and I had a very good exchange with him during Question Time and in a Topical Issue debate, he was willing to listen to the arguments we put forward forcefully. These arguments were articulated by many other public representatives, Members of this House and the farming organisations. I welcome the improvements. There is room for further improvement to the farm assist scheme because, unfortunately, we are witnessing a decline in farm incomes and considerable challenges for farm families, be they in livestock, beef, suckler cows or the dairy or other sectors. Unfortunately, they are not deriving an income from their holdings.

The rural social scheme is very important to rural communities. It is so important to the many individuals who participate. I understand that, up until recently, there were approximately 2,600 participants. Provision was made in the budget for an increase of 500. My party and other organisations put forward the view that we should be trying to achieve 5,000 participants annually. We all know of people who participate in the schemes. We know of their value to the individual as they give one an opportunity to go out and do some work. They bring great benefits to local communities and voluntary organisations, which are assisted in their valuable work. We all know there are many services provided in rural areas that would not be possible to provide were it not for community employment schemes and the rural social schemes. In many instances, those services are being provided by local community and voluntary groups in the place of the State providing such services. We all know from our constituency work of services that the State should be providing but which it is not providing. They are being provided through local voluntary effort, supplemented by workers on community employment schemes and rural social schemes. One should consider that the cost to the State of a person on a rural social scheme or community employment scheme by comparison with the cost of that individual drawing down a weekly welfare payment is negligible. We cannot quantify the great benefits that accrue from the schemes. I refer to the benefit to the individual and the local community. I appeal to the Minister and his Department officials to examine this area further. It is an area that results in a great return on the small cost.

The Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, both of whom are present, will be familiar with the disadvantage experienced by pensioners in the State who are drawing a pension from Britain in view of the weakness of sterling. County Donegal, County Cavan and County Monaghan have a considerable number of people who worked in Northern Ireland and Britain but who are now, thankfully, residing in this country. They are suffering as a result of the drop in the value of sterling. I acknowledge there is provision in the departmental scheme to have a compensatory payment if a pensioner's payment drops below the level of a comparable pension in this State but in many instances, it takes far too long to get the top-up. Unfortunately, there have been instances in which pensioners who were in receipt of a small top-up were punished very quickly if sterling improved in value against the euro. The same is not happening now in regard to trying to offset the decline in the value of sterling where an individual is in receipt of a UK pension. I appeal to the Minister and Department to consider compensating people quickly when the value of sterling falls to ensure they are not continually losing due to that drop in value.

I join the previous speakers who referred to the anomalies affecting the contributory pension, particularly the anomalies affecting women who were in the workplace and took time out to rear children or care for a family member but who were later denied the full pension because of the method of calculation of the yearly average contribution. All of us have constituents who are affected. It is predominantly and overwhelmingly women who are suffering as a result of the method of calculation of the pension. It is absolutely wrong that a person who was longer in insurable employment could get a smaller pension than a colleague who just completed ten years and alongside whom he or she worked. This absolute discrimination needs to be addressed. It would not impose a big burden on the State. It is a matter of trying to bring equity and equality into the system for pensioners.

See this speech in context