Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce this, the first of two Bills that will implement the social welfare package of €900 million announced last week in budget 2008. This generous package, representing nearly half of all additional current Government spending announced in last week's budget, brings total expenditure on social welfare in 2008 to just under €17 billion.

At a time of moderate growth, our first priority must be to ensure that the less well-off in society are protected. The budget announced last week provides significant resources to allow us to address the needs of the most disadvantaged in society. The schemes and other supports that the Department of Social and Family Affairs administers will benefit more than 1.5 million people. Families also receive child benefit for almost 1.2 million children.

The 2008 social welfare budget package makes significant progress towards achieving the Government's target rate for social welfare contributory pensions. In addition, it greatly enhances the position of the spouses and partners of contributory pensioners who receive the qualified adult allowance. The framework of supports for family carers has been strengthened and the budget package ensures that the real value of all social welfare payments is maintained and safeguarded.

The social welfare budget package ensures that decisive steps are being taken to implement commitments in the programme for Government, Towards 2016, and the national action plan for social inclusion.

The Government is committed to achieving a pension of at least €300 per week by 2012. As a first step towards achieving this target I am increasing the contributory State pension by €14 a week to €223.30 per week. The non-contributory State pension is being increased by €12 to €212 per week. Much of the debate on pensions focuses on the challenges to be met in the decades ahead as our population ages. These are major issues for our society and ones that must be faced. We must not, however, forget those who live on pensions and the need to ensure that today's pensioners have a decent income in retirement.

The increases in pensions over many years have been one of the major achievements of the Government. Since 2002, the level of the contributory State pension has increased by over 50% from €147.30 to €223.30 following this budget. This level of improvement has had a marked impact on the living standards of older people, enabling them to face the future with security and dignity.

This improvement is shown clearly in the numbers of older people deemed to be at risk of poverty, measured on a relative income basis. The most up-to-date figures from the EU survey on income and living conditions, which were published recently, have confirmed the steady improvements of recent years. The risk of poverty rate for older people has fallen from just under 30% in 2003 to 13.6% in 2006. The fall last year was 6.5 percentage points from the previous year, before the substantial improvements in social welfare pensions in 2007 and 2008 are taken into account.

The Government is also committed to increasing the pensioner qualified adult allowance to the level of the non-contributory State pension and the number of people eligible for this payment. I am pleased that it has been possible to take a major step forward in this regard in this year's budget. The Bill provides for an increase of €27 per week in the qualified adult rate which brings it to €200 per week or 94% of the target. This measure will benefit all qualified adults aged 66 and over, including those on reduced rates of payment who will benefit on a proportionate basis. This increase will be of particular benefit to women who do not have an entitlement to a contributory pension in their own right because of home responsibilities in the past.

As a result of these changes in the personal pension rate and the qualified adult rate, the household income of more than 42,000 pensioner couples will increase by up to €41 a week or nearly 11% next year. The total social welfare support provided for a contributory pensioner couple receiving the fuel allowance will exceed €23,000, an increase of almost €2,200 over their pre-budget position.

I have also lengthened the fuel season, in respect of which the fuel allowance of €18 a week is paid, by one week, to 30 weeks with effect from April next year. This measure will be of particular benefit to older people.

The Government has concerns for the long-term future of our pension system despite the major improvements for pensioners in recent years. Given our experience of the past ten years, it is appropriate that we review our overall approach so that we have in place a pension system that is sustainable in the long term and that will deliver an adequate retirement income to all retired people.

On 17 October last I published a Green Paper on Pensions. It addresses the challenges we face in the pensions area and puts forward a number of options to tackle them. The purpose of the Green Paper is to set out the situation and the economic and social implications of the various suggested courses of action.

Progress has been slow in ensuring that those in employment have an occupational or private pension. The national pensions review target is to ensure that 70% of those aged over 30 in employment have such a pension, but we are still at 62%. There are also concerns that the contributions being made by individuals into their pension schemes may be too low.

Women continue to have a lower coverage rate than men, although the gap is narrowing, and certain sectors of the economy such as hotels and restaurants, agriculture and retail continue to be extremely difficult to reach. Upwards of 1 million people will rely exclusively on social welfare provision for their retirement income unless action is taken, despite our progress.

We have choices, as set out in the Green Paper, in how to address the many issues that arise. At EU level several common approaches to the pension challenge are emerging, including supporting longer working lives and active ageing; balancing contributions and benefits in an appropriate and socially fair manner; and promoting the affordability and security of funded and private schemes.

We can apply some or all of these principles but it would not be appropriate however for me, or the Government, to champion any particular approach at this stage as this would drive the debate in one direction and diminish the consultation process. We must be clear, however, that good pension provision is costly, whether it is achieved through personal contributions to private pension schemes or through the State by way of PRSI contributions or taxes.

Pensions policy is of major importance and should be of interest to everyone. Given that it will grow in significance, it is important that we have an informed public discussion and debate on the subject. The Green Paper is a key part of that process.

This concerns not only our pensions system but also our priorities as individuals and as a society, including how long we live, our expectations for retirement and the prospects for our children. It is relevant to anyone with an interest in the shape of society in the decades ahead.

Our ambition must be to create a pension system that can be financially, economically and socially sustainable in the face of demographic change which entails a significant challenge and some difficult choices.

The establishment of the National Pensions Reserve Fund was a judicious and far-sighted initiative. The fund, which has a market value of €21 billion, will go some way towards easing future funding concerns.

The challenges outlined in the Green Paper are not unique to Ireland. They are at the heart of the debate on pension reform in many countries, particularly where the pace of demographic change is more advanced. The good news is that because our demographics will remain relatively favourable for some time, we have a reasonable, but by no means indefinite period, in which to learn from the experiences of other countries and to decide how best to address them. The consultation process will allow all interested parties the opportunity to contribute towards shaping a framework for addressing the pensions agenda in the long term. It will be important that all stakeholders participate constructively in this process as we work towards the achievement of a pensions system that can meet the needs of those currently in retirement and those of future generations. I look forward to moving the debate forward in this very important area in the coming year.

Carers play a critical role in ensuring our older people, people with disabilities and those who are seriously ill can remain in their own homes for as long as possible. Supporting and recognising carers in society is a priority of the Government and has been since 1997. During that period weekly payment rates to carers have been greatly increased, qualifying conditions for the carer's allowance have been significantly eased, coverage of the scheme has been extended and new schemes such as carer's benefit and the respite care grant have been introduced and extended. Recent reforms of the scheme allow persons in receipt of certain social welfare payments who are also providing full-time care and attention for a person to retain their main social welfare payment and receive a half rate carer's allowance. The amount paid varies depending on the person's means. As a result of these improvements, there are now over 34,000 carers in receipt of either carer's allowance or carer's benefit. These carers also receive a respite care grant, as do almost 10,000 other carers who do not qualify for weekly carer payments. The numbers availing of these schemes continue to increase.

The improvements to the carer's scheme have been made in the context of continued developments in areas such as needs assessment and home care packages which are also designed to facilitate the care of people in their own homes for as long as possible. One of the key Government commitments in the national partnership agreement, Towards 2016, is the development of a national carers' strategy. This commitment is reiterated in the programme for Government. One of the recommendations of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social and Family Affairs in its "Report on the Position of Full Time Carers" was that such a strategy should be developed. I am very pleased that we are in a position to act on that recommendation. The strategy will focus on supporting informal and family carers in the community. While social welfare supports for carers will clearly be a key issue in the strategy, other issues such as access to respite care, health and other services, education, training and employment will also feature strongly. Co-operation between relevant Departments and agencies is essential if the provision of services, supports and entitlements for carers is to be fully addressed. For that reason all relevant Departments and agencies will be involved in the strategy and there will be appropriate consultation with the social partners. An interdepartmental working group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, is being established to draw up the strategy and to manage the consultation process. I expect the strategy to be completed by the summer of 2008.

The development of a national carers' strategy provides us with an opportunity to build further on the improvements made to the scheme to date and consider other areas where further progress can be made. I am delighted to provide in the Bill for further improvements to the income supports available to carers which build on the significant improvements made in recent years. As in previous years, I am increasing the rates of payments for carers in order that, with effect from January, carer's allowance will increase by €14, bringing the rate for carers over age 66 years to €232 a week and the payment for carers under 66 to €214 per week. I am also increasing the rate of carer's benefit by €14 to €214.70 per week. In addition, I am pleased to provide for an increase of €200 in the rate of the respite care grant to €1,700 from June 2008. This will allow over 48,000 carers next year to have a well deserved break from their caring duties and is a positive step towards the achievement of our commitment to increase the respite care grant to €3,000 per year over the lifetime of the Government.

The level of the income disregards for carer's allowance has been increased to €332.50 per week for a single person and €665 per week for a couple. This means that a couple can earn up to €60,150 per annum and still receive a reduced rate of carer's allowance, as well as the associated free travel and household benefits. This measure surpasses the commitment in Towards 2016 to ensure those on average industrial earnings can continue to qualify for a full carer's allowance. Similarly, the income threshold for carer's benefit has been increased to €332.50 per week. These improvements in the income supports available from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, together with the improvements in home care and related services in recent years, represent a further realisation of the Government's vision of a co-ordinated approach to services and supports for carers in the community.

One of my priority concerns is to maintain the value of the lowest social welfare rates in keeping with the commitments in the programme for Government and the national action plan for social inclusion 2007 to 2016. The rates of payments to people with disabilities, the unemployed, widows and those parenting alone, to mention just a few of the groups to benefit, have increased by €12 or approximately 6.5%. The value of the qualified adult allowance for these payments is also being increased by €8 a week. As a result of the budget, a couple dependent on jobseeker's allowance, with no other earnings, will be over €1,000 better off next year, while a single unemployed person will gain by over €650. These increases are ahead of projected increases in both prices and earnings. Thus, for the fifth year in a row, social welfare rates will have grown faster than prices and earnings. In fact, since 2004, the lowest social welfare rates have increased by 58% compared to cumulative price increases of 15% in the same period. In 2004 the lowest social welfare rate of payment equated to 24% of gross average industrial earnings; it will now stand at 30%. These are significant achievements and the Government is determined to consolidate them and continue to make further progress.

I am particularly pleased to provide in the Bill for an increase of €2,000 in the widowed parent grant to a level of €6,000. This is an important measure for the families concerned, giving them a timely financial boost at a time of bereavement and great personal loss, which, frequently, is also compounded by economic uncertainty and concerns about the future.

The social welfare budget package sets aside nearly €148 million, or €194 million when the early child care supplement is included, to improve the range of supports provided for children. Budget 2008 has provided for increases of 6% or above in overall child income support through a combination of child benefit, qualified child increases, back to school clothing and footwear allowance and the early child care supplement. The impact of these measures is best illustrated by way of an example. Take the case of a social welfare dependent family with three children, one of whom is under six years of age and another over 12. As a result of the budget, the combined value of child support payments to that family will increase by €718 in a full year, bringing total child income support to over €12,000 next year. This equates to an income support payment of €77 per child per week and represents an increase of over 6% in the value of current payments.

The Bill provides for payment of an additional €2 per week in the qualified child allowance, formerly called the child dependent allowance, which is paid to all social welfare recipients with children. It also provides for increases in the threshold for family income supplement by €10 per week for each child, which will result in payments increasing by €6 a week per child. These improvements will benefit some 26,500 existing families and entitle a further 2,700 to the payment.

Adequate income support is only part of the solution for people and families living in poverty. They need a lasting solution to their difficulties and the necessary supports to help them make their way to a more promising future. That is why activation and participation in employment, education, training and personal development opportunities have become an increasingly important part of my Department's activities. As a way of improving the effectiveness of these measures, it has been decided to amalgamate two initiatives run by the Department and significantly increase the funding provided for them. The revamped activation and family support programme will have a budget of €6.5 million next year. It will provide funding for projects run by third parties to assist welfare recipients and members of their families to enhance their employability through education, training and personal development. It will also provide, or co-fund, training and development programmes for particularly disadvantaged social welfare customers and their families, including very young lone mothers, other parents rearing children without the support of a partner, carers, the Traveller community and people with disabilities.

Provision has been made in the Department's administrative budget for the deployment of an additional 30 facilitators with clerical support staff next year as the first stage in a radical development of activation supports provided by the Department. This programme which is being funded under the national development plan will provide for the individual case management of all social welfare customers of working age who are not progressing into employment or accessing training or employment opportunities.

The approach will be specifically directed towards those who, because of their personal or family circumstances, face particular difficulties in engaging with the labour market. The budget makes provision for other measures designed to assist people in the progression from welfare to work. These include an increase in the upper income threshold for entitlement to one-parent family payment and a reform of the method of assessing earnings for that scheme by disregarding social insurance and other employment related contributions.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. Sections 2 and 3, together with Schedules 1 and 2, provide for increases in the rates of social welfare payments, including an increase of €14 per week for recipients of the contributory State pension and for recipients of the contributory widow's or widower's pension and deserted wives benefit who are aged over 66, and for recipients of the transitional State pension or invalidity pension aged 65 and over, bringing the weekly payment to €223.30. Recipients of carer's benefit will also receive an increase of €14 per week, bringing their new weekly payment to €214.70. The Bill also provides for an increase of €14 per week for both categories of persons in receipt of carer's allowance — those aged over 66 and under 66. These increases will bring the weekly rate of carer's allowance to €232 for recipients aged over 66 and to €214 for those under 66 years of age.

Provision is made for an increase of €12 in the weekly personal rate of the non-contributory State pension, giving a new rate of €212. The rate for the non-contributory widow's and widower's pensions is being increased to €197.80. An increase of €12 is also provided in the personal rates of illness benefit, jobseeker's benefit, injury benefit and health and safety benefit, bringing the weekly rate to €197.80. An increase of €12 per week is provided for in all other social insurance and social assistance payments where the recipient is aged under 66 and for recipients of invalidity pension aged under 65. The personal rates of jobseeker's allowance, pre-retirement allowance, farm assist and disability allowance are being increased to €197.80.

An increase of €27 per week is provided in respect of qualified adults of recipients of invalidity pension, where the qualified adult is aged 66 years or over. An increase of €27 per week is also being provided for qualified adults aged 66 years and over where their spouse or partner is receiving a contributory or transitional State pension, with pro rata increases for those on certain reduced rates.

In the case of contributory and transitional State pension recipients, the increase is €9.30 where the qualified adult is aged under 66. For those in receipt of invalidity pensions, the increase is €8.60 where the qualified adult is aged under 66. In the case of non-contributory State pensions, the increase is €7.90 where the qualified adult is aged under 66. An increase of €8 per week is provided for all other qualified adult payments. The rate payable in respect of a qualified child is being increased by €2 per week to €24 per week. These increases will take effect from the first week in January 2008.

Section 4 provides for increases in the weekly income thresholds used to determine entitlement to family income supplement. The new thresholds range from €490 in the case of a family with one child to €1,170 in the case of a family with eight or more children. This measure will take effect from 3 January 2008.

Section 5 provides for an increase from €48,800 to €50,700 in the annual earnings ceiling up to which social insurance contributions are payable by employees. The section further provides for an increase in the amount of weekly earnings below which PRSI is not payable, from €339 to €352. These provisions come into effect on 1 January 2008.

Section 6 provides for an increase in the earnings ceiling up to which social insurance contributions are payable by optional contributors, from €48,800 to €50,700, with effect from 1 January 2008.

Section 7 provides for a €2,000 increase in the widowed parent grant, bringing it to €6,000. This increase is effective from budget day, 5 December 2007.

Section 8 provides for an increase in the health levy exemption thresholds from €480 to €500 per week and from €24,960 to €26,000 per annum. This measure will take effect from 1 January 2008.

Pensioners who are paid by electronic methods will receive their increase in full from January 2008. Increases for recipients of jobseeker's benefit or allowance, illness or maternity benefit, one-parent family payment, family income supplement, farm assist and supplementary welfare allowance will be paid in full from January 2008.

As has been the case previously, because of the lead-in time involved in the production of personal payable orders, recipients of certain long-term payments such as pensions, carer's allowance and invalidity pension will receive their increase in mid-February, backdated to January, along with their new payable order books. Increases for certain other long-term payments such as State pensions and disability allowance will be paid by a special once-off payment in mid-February, to cover 12 weeks' payment to the end of March when new payable order books will be issued.

This Social Welfare Bill, the first of two instalments, safeguards the living standards of those who rely on social welfare income and other supports and targets the allocation of resources towards those most in need. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to a constructive debate.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I too look forward to a constructive debate. While I welcome this Bill in so far as it provides for increases in social welfare payments, the rate of increase only matches the increases in the cost of living in the past 12 months and falls short of the increase in wages. This debate is an opportunity to test the Government's promises against its delivery, the reality against the rhetoric.

I begin by referring to the announcements that got the biggest cheers on budget day, even if they were somewhat less enthusiastic than last year. Like others, I welcome the increases that have been announced. However, when one compares the rate of increase to the rate of inflation, it is clear they will be swallowed up almost immediately. The increase of €12 in the non-contributory State pension and €14 in the contributory pension reflect an increase of 6% and 6.7%, respectively. Inflation is running at almost 5%, however, which shows how small an increase pensioners will enjoy.

It is important to remind the Government of its election promise, just six short months ago, to increase pensions to €300 per week over the lifetime of the Government. This promise was reiterated in the agreed programme for Government. Last Tuesday in the Dáil, however, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, when speaking about the agreed programme for Government as it affects carers and the national carers strategy, told us that completing the strategy by the end of 2007 was a "target that was unrealistic". In the wake of last week's budget, we can see how much of the remainder of the programme has also proven to be unrealistic. In the case of increases in the old age pension, the Government has fallen behind on its commitment at its first test. When one compares the increases our old age pensioners have received to the huge increases the Cabinet recently awarded itself — but now seems to have postponed for a brief period — we see just how sincere it is in assisting and caring for the less well-off in society.

I welcome the increase in the qualified adult allowance. Again, however, this breaches the commitment the Government set for itself when it committed to completing the scheme this year rather than merely taking another step. I urge the Minister to reconsider this decision and to complete the move to bring the payment to the level of the State pension. I also urge him to ensure that all so-called qualified adults, of which there are some 123,000, the vast majority being women, can avail of this payment independently via direct access rather than having to receive it from their spouse. The current situation, where it is the husband who must sign a form to allow the payment go directly to his wife, has caused hardship for some vulnerable women and is a practice that has no place in modern society.

The failure of the Government to offer any increase in the fuel allowance, notwithstanding the provision for an additional week, ignores the rising costs of fuel and home heating oil. In effect, it ignores the reality of the lives of many of our elderly. The Minister should talk to some of those dependent on the fuel allowance to heat their homes and he will realise just how little can be purchased for €18 per week.

An allowance that was subject to no changes in this Bill is the death grant. To avail of this grant, a person must have paid contributions. I have been asked by several bereaved persons in recent times to urge the Minister to review this, particularly for the benefit of those who never had the option of making contributions because of health reasons or special needs. The death grant is not available when such people die as adults and I ask the Minister to consider this matter.

I welcome the increase in the widowed parent's grant, which is important. In light of this, I draw attention to the living alone allowance. I have been told by many people, particularly during the election campaign, that this has not been increased since its inception. A similar case to that of the widowed parent grant can be made for this allowance, although no children are involved.

Where a spouse has died, people have indicated that the only difference in expenditure is on clothes for the person and a slight decrease in amounts spent on food. The cost of lighting, heating, electricity, gas, insurance, car tax and household furnishings is the same whether one person or two people live in a house. The living alone allowance deserves far more attention than it has received in the past number of years.

It was interesting to read the CORI justice analysis and critique of the budget; members of that group were before a committee today. It stated that the momentum in reducing poverty has been lost for the coming year because of the failure to address the working poor issue, together with the failure to increase the qualifying adult social welfare rate to make it equal to 100% of the claimant's rate, as I have already mentioned, and the failure to do substantially more to tackle child poverty.

It is important to remind the Minister, Deputy Cullen, of the Government's commitments in Towards 2016, which was launched with much fanfare last year. In it, the Government committed through the national agreement to ensuring that every person had sufficient income to live life with dignity, and that social services were accessible, appropriate and adequate for all. With the failure to keep up the momentum on the anti-poverty strategy, I question the Government's commitment to achieving this aim. Will it be consigned to being just another unrealistic target?

In terms of the Bill as it affects children, under the Government one in nine children live in consistent poverty. It is important to note that children are not considered poor in their own right but poor as part of a family. If we are to really tackle child poverty, families must also be supported. The reality of child poverty can mean children could go for a full day without a substantial meal or being cold because parents are unable to afford heat in the home.

The €2 increase in the qualified child allowance would not even allow parents to provide one more nourishing meal for their children per week. The increase is less than half the rate of inflation, so effectively it is not an increase at all. The Government has missed an opportunity to target payment support to children who are living either with welfare-dependent parents or parents on low income, despite their commitment in their programme for Government. Will the Government really tolerate a position where children go to bed hungry, cold and malnourished because they have failed to target supports to those who need them most? I do not see any coherence in the Government's plans to tackle child and family poverty.

The Minister must agree that the family income support is a key component in attempts to support families at work on low pay. It is generally accepted that take-up of family income supplement has been a long-standing problem, with research undertaken by the ESRI suggesting that fewer than one in three of potentially eligible claimants actually receive FIS. This supplement was introduced in 1984 and it is stunning that, 22 years later, the Government has said that the take-up has remained a fraction of the potential for all that period, with the previous Minister indicating that neither he nor his officials had any real ideas on why 60% or more of eligible families were not receiving FIS. The precise words of the former Minister and Cabinet colleague of the current Minister were, "There is no definitive explanation as to why a significant group of people with a potential average entitlement of approximately €113 per week apparently decide not to apply." The Minister should outline his own views on this in his conclusion.

Some 40,000 families in this country are not receiving FIS, 40,000 families who are entitled to a FIS amount of €5,000 or more per annum. Many of them may be forced to rely on dig-outs from friends and families or, worse still, money lenders. This is unacceptable and it is a terrible indictment of the Government that the problem has persisted for more than 20 years.

The amount saved by the State by not having a proactive system is enormous. I note from statements of the previous Minister that automatic take-up was beyond the ICT capabilities of the Revenue Commissioners and his Department. Will the Minister ask the senior official recently appointed to his Department to use her knowledge of the Revenue system and administration to propose urgent measures to increase take-up?

Could he consider setting a target period of three years to achieve an 85% take-up rate? Will he examine with the Minister of Finance options to combine FIS claim information with tax return forms? This would solve two problems in one stroke by getting more people to make tax returns and ensure more people get FIS, while reducing the amount of paper in the two systems.

I welcome the Government's decision to increase the early child care supplement by €100 per year, even if it is not until April. When this supplement was announced by the Government in December 2005, the intention was to help parents meet the cost of child care in Ireland. From the time of the announcement, the Government seemed unaware of the implications of the payment being linked to child benefit and, therefore, being made available for children not living within Ireland. It is very important to point out that the supplement was introduced as a child care cost measure designed to meet the costs of child care in this country and the Government failed to introduce a special provision to ring fence the money for the cost of child care in Ireland.

We all remember the Cabinet confusion surrounding the cost of this scheme for children who are not resident in Ireland. When asked by Deputy Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach said in January 2006 that the cost would be €1 million. Some ten days later, the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs stated it would cost €2.7 million by the end of the year, but two and a half months later the then Minister of State with responsibility for children indicated it would cost €10.8 million by the end of the year. Another month later, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs stated the cost could be up to €4 million per year, with the Taoiseach suggesting the next day the cost could be €9.5 million. These were five different figures from three different Government members.

It is clear the Government does not intend to review the scheme and make it only available to families coping with the cost of child care in Ireland. This means substantial amounts of taxpayers' money, which could be paid to parents struggling on a daily basis with expensive child care costs, is leaving the country and going to families who do not have to meet these substantial costs.

I have no difficulty whatever with the payment being made to all children under the age of six, of any nationality, resident in this country and whose parents have to cope with the cost of child care in Ireland. Had this been done, at least an extra €27 million would be available to parents of children living in this country availing of child care.

The Minister informed me in a reply to a parliamentary question in October of this year that a total of 20,000 claims from EU nationals from non-resident children were being processed. I accept that not all may be eligible, but this represents a significant number of claims which do not meet the intended purpose of the supplement.

The Minister will be aware of my views on the continued imposition by the Government of a habitual residence condition on children of asylum seekers living in Ireland. Every pre-budget submission, including one from the Combat Poverty Agency, received by the Minister and I decried this shameful practice. I raised this issue in a priority question with the Minister last week and his response showed a clear lack of understanding of the reality for the estimated 3,000 children living in these circumstances.

The Minister cannot ignore the fact that the effect of denying child benefit to these children is very visible and immediate. It is every parent's wish to protect and look after their children, but parents of these children cannot even provide for the basic requirements, such as suitable food and dietary supplements.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is unfair.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Items like every day, over-the-counter medicines are beyond the means of these parents. Other issues arise, including meeting the children's schooling needs.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The UN was quite satisfied that we do an excellent job. The point is unfair.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to put on the record of the House an item that is not included in this year's Social Welfare Bill but which should have been if the Government had kept its promise. One of the key promises made by Fianna Fáil prior to the last general election was to halve the rate of PRSI. This was probably the main plank in Fianna Fáil's election platform in respect of taxation. It is arguable that a considerable number of votes received by the party in the election were as a result of this promise to cut the tax rate. Yet, there was no mention of this in the budget nor in this Bill. It is all the more reprehensible that Fianna Fáil went ahead and made that promise to the electorate while it had in its possession the actuarial report on the social insurance fund, while knowing full well it was not possible to provide for that kind of cut in PRSI rates. It would have known that the social insurance fund would run into difficulties fairly soon and that major issues would arise about the sustainability of the fund. Yet, knowing this information since last April, Fianna Fáil went ahead and the Taoiseach made that promise to the public. One must ask whether it is any wonder people are cynical about politics when this was a blatant misrepresentation of the situation and a blatant attempt to buy the election, knowing there was no possibility of that promise being kept.

The estimate for that promised cut in PRSI is €645 million. There was never any prospect of that cut being made. It is important to put on the record of the House the kind of deception in which Fianna Fáil engaged in the earlier part of this year prior to the election. It is worth reminding people of that deception and the tactics employed by Fianna Fáil in the election. If people are fooled once, it is a shame on the Government, but if they are fooled twice it is a shame on them for believing Fianna Fáil. People have very short memories, but they fell for it again. The Taoiseach made those promises and I have no doubt the people will rue the day they were foolish enough to believe the Taoiseach that he would deliver on promises. This was a central plank of the pre-election promise and it has not materialised.

Other promises were made before the election to increase the State pension to €300 per week. I ask the Minister to provide information on the costing of this promise. The budget omitted to refer to supplementary pensions. I appreciate that the Green Paper process is in train but it is important the Minister indicates his intentions to the public, in particular with respect to the over-reliance on tax relief in the pensions area. There is effectively a rich man-poor man approach to pensions. The State is subsidising the pensions of the very wealthy. The rate of transfer to the wealthy is approximately 33 times the rate of transfer to a person on the average industrial wage, simply because the better off can afford to stash away more for their pension. There is no justification for the State subsidising the pensions of people such as Michael O'Leary, for example.

In spite of this, the whole thrust of the supplementary pension policy being pursued by the Minister is, first, to provide tax relief at the top rate and then to provide a very generous ceiling up to which people can claim tax relief, which gives rise to the entirely inequitable situation where wealthy people are doing very well, whereas those who cannot afford to put away money are getting no benefit from the State. Clearly that situation has to change and I hope this will emerge from the Green Paper process. It would have been helpful if the Minister had indicated his intention in this regard in the budget because that has been the sole strategy used by him in respect of supplementary pensions and, on the grounds of equity, this has to come to an end.

I hope the Minister does not use the Green Paper process to further long-finger key decisions on pensions so that this time next year we will be here discussing a social welfare Bill that includes proposals in respect of supplementary pensions. I previously welcomed the Green Paper, which is a comprehensive document, and commended the various interests that were involved in contributing to it. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that he intends to close the consultation process by mid-2008, that he will be in a position to bring forward proposals for the budget at the end of next year and that these proposals will be contained in the social welfare Bill we will debate in 12 months' time.

I do not agree with the position of the Government and the social partners that benchmarking the lowest social welfare rates to 30% of gross average industrial earnings is sufficient. To do this in respect of pensions or other social welfare payments is to suggest that less than €200 a week is sufficient to live on.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not suggest that.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is clearly not the case. I challenge anybody in this House to survive on less than €200 a week. In a situation where grocery inflation is nearly 5% and where there have been extraordinary increases in the cost of fuel, by up to 17%, it is exceptionally difficult for people to survive on €197.80 per week.

I welcome the provisions of this Bill in respect of the qualified adult rate for pensioners' spouses. I acknowledge this generous increase which takes us a long way on the road to the 100% target rate. When will the Minister make the same progress in respect of other qualified adult payments?

Pensioners had a legitimate expectation that the pre-election promise of increasing the State pension to €300 per week would be honoured in some kind of an even manner over the five-year term of Government. It is estimated that to do this, the Minister would need to increase the State pension by over €18 this year. He has not done so and the increase is €14. Effectively, pensioners will be over €4 short of the expected rise next year. Given the uncertain times ahead, why did the Minister not meet that target this year? It is disappointing and it does not augur well for reaching the €300 target in the five-year period.

It is particularly disappointing that for the 14th year in a row the Minister has failed to increase the living alone allowance. This was traditionally pitched at about 7% of the maximum State pension but because it has not been increased in 14 years, it is now only worth approximately 50% of what it should be worth. If it had kept pace with inflation it would be pitched at the €15.50 mark. It is most disappointing that it has been completely ignored. I do not understand the reason for this as there has been very little discussion about it and the Minister has made little reference to it. It appears to be an unspoken, hidden Government policy not to increase this allowance. Approximately 160,000 people are in receipt of the living alone allowance. By any yardstick, we know it is much more expensive for a person living alone in terms of keeping a house and heating and food bills. It costs more than half of what it cost two people to live. Most of the overheads are the same whether one person or two people are living in a house. Will the Minister outline his thinking on this matter? Either he has a strategy in respect of that or it is a particularly miserable oversight and it should not have happened.

The Government parties promised in their programme for Government to award the over-80s allowance to pensioner spouses. The Minister has missed an opportunity to do this. It is miserable that this promise has not been fulfilled as the cost would be negligible. The estimated total is that it would be €3 million. It is regrettable that the Minister has failed to deliver on this promise.

The number of women who were affected by the marriage bar in the Civil Service is declining. These women were forced out of the workforce through no fault of their own due to the policy that existed at the time. As they reach retirement age, many women who were thus affected find they have lost out and a special provision needs to be made for them. A woman who was forced out of work because of the marriage bar, whose husband is in receipt of a social welfare pension, may be catered for, but a woman whose husband is not in receipt of a State pension gets nothing. There is a need to recognise the situation in which some women find themselves.

The clear policy of recent years in respect of increasing the income of pensioners has paid off. I welcome the indication that consistent poverty among pensioners has declined significantly. This targeted approach has been successful. It is necessary for the Minister to take the same kind of targeted approach to other categories of people who are dependent on welfare. The primary group in need of attention is the 96,000 children who are living in consistent poverty. This approach would receive the support of all sides of the House. It brings shame on us all that the figures are so high. Incredibly, in spite of the economic success of the past decade, the numbers of children living in consistent poverty are on the increase and it is extraordinary that this Bill and the budget do nothing to reduce that number. It is quite shameful the Minister at some level decided the €22 a week qualified child allowance was inadequate, but in looking at it has decided that a €2 per week increase is somehow adequate. That increase brings the payment to €24 per week for the children who could be described as the poorest of the poor children and anybody who knows anything about rearing children will know that €3.43 per day is utterly inadequate. Is it any wonder there are still such large numbers of children in consistent poverty? This is an area that needs urgent attention and when looking at global figures it is not enough for the Minister to roll-in the child benefit payment and early childhood payment. The child benefit payment is available to every child, rich or poor. I refer to those children, numbering almost 100,000, who are living in poverty and who need additional support from the State. Such support, at present at a level of €24 per week, is completely inadequate and I ask the Minister to devote his attention to this category of person in the coming year because it is an area in which no progress is being made and which needs urgent attention.

It is important to bear in mind that the €6 increase in child benefit for each of the first two children is below the current rate of inflation. The budget has been particularly disappointing in its lack of focus on children.

Similarly, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance required serious reform, but this has not happened. The qualifying conditions should have been increased to the qualifying level for FIS and it is a missed opportunity not to do so.

For years there has been talk about creating a supplement to child benefit targeted at lower income families but this never materialised. Today we, in the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, listened to two groups, CORI and The Combat Poverty Agency. There is not agreement among the various groups working in this area on the most effective way of targeting child poverty, but something needs to be done. Whether the Minister introduces a supplement or increases the qualified child payment or, indeed, opts for the other proposal that has come out of the proposals for supporting lone parents, targeting child poverty must be the priority for next year in order to bring up the income levels of children living in the poorest circumstances.

The promise in the programme for Government to examine the possibility of introducing a parental benefit never materialised in this Bill either. That is regrettable, given that we are so far behind other European countries in respect of parental leave arrangements.

I welcome the €100 increase in the early child care payment, but it is important to state that this is no substitute whatsoever for putting in place the kind of investment that is required in services for children. There are two elements to supporting children, obviously improving their income levels but also improving the services that are available to them. When we are talking about lifting children out of poverty and breaking that cycle, the key matter, apart from them having enough money for food and clothing, is access to decent quality services. Regrettably, there has been no progress made in providing State-funded preschool services or State-funded child care services. Indeed, another glaring omission from the budget is the lack of improvement in the primary health care teams. Those three areas, preschool education, child care and access to health services, are key if children are to be lifted out of poverty. Not only is there lack of progress on income support, there is also a glaring lack of progress on putting in place those services which would allow children to live normal childhoods and to reach their potential.

Lone parents continue to be the group in society most affected by consistent poverty. The most recent statistics show that 33% of lone parent families are on a low income and experiencing basic deprivation. As with children, the rate for consistent poverty among lone parents is on the increase. The principal reasons for this are the lack of public services available to lone parents to allow them access employment allied to the continuing poverty traps, such as rent supplement, faced by lone parents.

I note in the Minister's speech on the budget last week that 30 more facilitators are to be recruited to redevelop activation measures by the Department, but that is just one side of the coin. Where are the child care and training services to go along with this? The €6.5 million mentioned in the budget speech, and again today, will just not do it. There has been a significant underestimation of the level of service required to help lone parents get off welfare and into the workforce, and this spans a range of public services from child care services to preschool services, mentoring services, access to education and training and supports for returning to the workforce. There is a panoply of support services required if we are serious about getting lone parents off welfare and into the workforce, and €6 million really will not make any appreciable impression on the need in that area.

In a country where public services are so sparse, parents, even poor ones, are forced to purchase everything. The Government is not providing poor parents with the income support to purchase such services, and neither is it providing the services. The Government is finding out the hard way that the policy of generous tax shelters, badly skewed tax-relief schemes and once-off tax cuts, rather than long-term investment in public services during the boom years, was a flawed policy. Now the boom is gone and we still do not have basic public services on which poor people, in particular, can rely.

Only 34,000 carers receive a weekly payment. According to the last census, there were 161,000 carers in the State. Therefore, only 21% of carers receive a weekly payment. The census figures also revealed the large number of carers who were working long hours at home and in the workplace. Some 67,500 carers spent 15 hours or more per week caring for somebody else. Over half of all carers, some 90,544, indicated their principal economic status was at work. This suggests that none of these would be entitled to a weekly payment under current rules. Welfare policy clearly is not working if so many people are forced to burn the candles at both ends.

The Government has already reneged on a clear commitment in the programme for Government to publish a national carer's strategy by the end of 2007. It is only getting around to that now. Due to this delay, budget 2008 changed very little for carers.

Public policy on carers needs to be brought into the 21st century. I strongly believe the qualifying medical criteria for carer's allowance need to be relaxed. In particular, the current dependency test is far too rigid and does not act in the best interests of the person requiring care. The test should not be a question of whether someone requires constant care and attention. Instead it should be a question of whether the care and attention provided is of such significance that it allows the person cared for to stay at home, to enjoy even a limited amount of independence, to stay out of institutional care or to place less demand on public services. Instead it should concern whether the care and attention provided is of such significance that it allows the person cared for to stay at home, enjoy even a limited amount of independence, stay out of institutional care or place less demand on pubic services.

Most carers will make the point that they are saving the State a fortune by their actions. This is true. It is long past time that argument was listened to and acted upon. Many people in the State are in a situation where they provide care and attention to elderly relatives. Perhaps they call in the morning to get them up and set aside food for their day. They call again to them in the evening to get them ready for bed, give them their medication and settle them for the night. They are not caring for them on a full-time basis and many of them hold a 40-hour a week job. However, the care and attention they provide is critical to those cared for and to enabling them stay out of institutional care. There must be recognition for this.

Many other issues related to carers should also be addressed. The application form for carer's allowance is far too long and complicated. It is a great burden on those applying and a significant factor in discouraging claims. Also, the outcome of applications is far from certain, particularly with regard to medical criteria. Carers caring for more than one person lose out. There is no reason they should not receive a double carer's allowance. Why should they not get an allowance for both people for whom they care?

Carers with children may not qualify for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, because their income from carer's allowance counts in the means test for that allowance, which is ridiculous. It is an anomaly with which the Minister must deal. Carers taking up carer's allowance from a position where they were neither paying nor receiving credits should receive credits from the date they are awarded carer's allowance so they can improve their pension qualification for retirement. This provision should be back-dated to carers who have lost out.

On the issue of people of working age, the points I made with regard to lone parents also apply to school leavers. It is wrong that school leavers should be able to move directly from school to jobseeker's allowance. This does young people a serious disservice. Often, these are the same people who have been failed by the education system. They leave school early at 17 or 18 years of age and sign on straight away. They should not be allowed to do that. We should have a sufficiently resourced system in place that picks up on those who leave school early or with little or no qualifications. We should have a system whereby these young people will be mentored and directed into training and education facilities or supported employment. The State, having washed its hands of some early leavers through the failure to meet their educational needs, again washes its hands in terms of the employment prospects of this cohort of young people. This should not happen. Our employment services should be challenged to provide the necessary supports to these young people. We must intervene at an earlier stage so young people do not get into the bad habit of signing on and being dependent on welfare. We must ensure it is not possible for young people to go directly from school onto the dole.

Many claimants of social welfare payments lose out the first three days of their claim. I cannot understand the reason for this, which is a sore point for claimants. Why is it that people who must leave the workforce and fall back on welfare payments are not entitled to claim for the first three days? There seems to be no justification for this other than this has always been the case. Will the Minister look at this issue and give a satisfactory response?

With regard to those in direct provision, it is scandalous that we expect anybody to live on €19 odd. This is the only welfare payment that has not been increased in years. I urge the Minister to give immediate attention to that issue.

As this Bill involves costs to the Exchequer, we will be under the usual restrictions which make it difficult for us to raise amendments which might involve charges. I urge the Minister to show some consideration tomorrow when we take the other Stages of the Bill in areas where we raise genuine issues of concern. He should be generous in allowing some of our requests for reports etc.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy John Cregan.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I picked up a copy of the social inclusion report, Building an Inclusive Society, on my way to the Chamber, which would have put me in the mood for this debate if that had been necessary, which it was not. I compliment the Minister on that report. Reared as I was in my political work by my former colleague and Deputy, Mr. Chris Flood, I have always been keen to stress social inclusion ideals.

I had the opportunity today to co-chair a meeting of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs with Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae where excellent presentations were made by the Combat Poverty Agency and CORI. I would like to mention that CORI has produced an analysis and critique of the budget which I recommend to all Members as it is an excellent publication.

The Minister has already outlined the main provisions of the Bill. I will not repeat them, but I congratulate him on achieving a fine level of support from the Tánaiste through the negotiation of this welcome €900 million. This package, which represents nearly half of all additional current Government spending announced in last week's budget, brings total expenditure on social welfare in 2008 to almost €17 billion. This figure of €17 billion demonstrates the Government's commitment to social and family affairs. At a time of more moderate growth, it will continue to ensure the less well off in society are protected, which is something we should all strive to achieve. I note from the Minister's contribution the scale of the services provided by the 4,300 staff in the social welfare area.

The 50 schemes and other supports the Department of Social and Family Affairs provide will benefit over 1.5 million people. Families also receive child benefit for almost 1.2 million children, which ensures that decisive steps are taken in implementing commitments in the programme for Government, Towards 2016 and the national action plan for social inclusion.

As the Minister is aware, I am a strong advocate of the elderly generally and in my constituency of Dublin South-West, which embraces Firhouse, Brittas, Bohernabreena, Greenhills, Templeogue and Tallaght. I am pleased the Government is committed to achieving a pension of at least €300 per week by 2012, despite the budgetary constraints, by increasing the State contributory pension by €14 a week to €223.30 per week and the non-contributory State pension by €12 to €212 per week. This is welcome in that the increases exceed inflation. The Minister will be aware of the fine pre-budget submission sent to him by the Tallaght Welfare Society, of which I am happy to be a board member. Tallaght is the third largest population centre in the country. I support the submission made on behalf of many organisations in the town.

As the Minister has stated, much of the current debate on pensions is focused on the challenges to be met in the decades ahead as our population ages. These major issues for our society must be faced. However, we must not forget that those who are living on pensions need to be catered for. We should ensure that our pensioners have a decent income. Increases in pensions over many years have been one of the Government's major achievements. The contributory State pension has increased by over 50% in recent years, from €147.30 in 2002 to €223.30 following this budget. Like many other Members, I welcome the marked impact of this improvement on the living standards of older people. The benefits of these increases was evident in the figures issued last week as part of the EU survey on income and living conditions, which confirmed the steady improvements of recent years. The risk of poverty for older people has fallen from just under 30% in 2003 to 13.6% in 2006. The decrease last year of 6.5%, when compared to the previous year, can be noted before the substantial 2007 and 2008 improvements in social welfare pensions are taken into account.

The Minister's commitment to increasing the pensioner qualified adult allowance to the level of the State non-contributory pension represents a major step forward. This year's budget provides for an increase of €27 per week in the qualified adult rate, bringing the overall payment to €200 per week. This increase, which will be of particular benefit to women who are not entitled to a contributory pension in their own right because they had home responsibilities in the past, is to be supported. The changes in the personal pension rate and the qualified adult rate will lead next year to an increase of up to €41 a week, or almost 11%, in the household incomes of more than 42,000 pensioner couples.

Like other Deputies, I have been a supporter of the Carers Association for a long time. I have lobbied continuously for acknowledgement of the contribution that carers make in our society. I pay tribute to Deputy Penrose, the former Chairman of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, who did a great deal of pioneering work in this area.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Carers play a critical role in ensuring that older persons, people with disabilities and those who are seriously ill can remain in their own homes for as long as possible. Supporting and recognising carers in society has been a priority of the Government since 1997. Over that period, weekly payment rates to carers have been greatly increased, qualifying conditions for the carer's allowance have been significantly eased, coverage of the scheme has been extended and new schemes such as carer's benefit and the respite care grant have been introduced and extended. I support the recent reforms of the carer's allowance scheme, which allow people in receipt of certain social welfare payments who provide full-time care and attention to others to retain their main social welfare payments and receive half-rate carer's allowance payments. The amount paid varies depending on the person's means.

As the Minister, Deputy Cullen, said, more than 34,000 carers now receive either carer's allowance or carer's benefit. They also receive a respite care grant, as do almost 10,000 other carers who do not qualify for weekly carer payments. These figures demonstrate the Government's commitment to carers. While we would all like the values to be greater, it should be acknowledged that we have come a long way in ten years. I will comment on some of the specific increases. The carer's allowance rate will increase by €14, bringing the weekly rate for carers over the age of 66 to €232 and that for carers under that age to €214. The rate of carer's benefit will also increase by €14. The increase of €200, to €1,700, in the respite care grant rate from June 2008 will allow more than 48,000 carers to have a well deserved break from their caring duties. This move represents a positive step towards the achievement of the Government's commitment to increase the respite care grant to €3,000 per year over the lifetime of this Administration. The level of income disregards for carer's allowance has been increased to €332.50 per week for a single person and €665 per week for a couple. This means a couple can earn up to €60,150 per annum and still receive a reduced rate of carer's allowance, as well as the associated free travel and household benefits.

The social welfare budget package provides an additional €148 million to improve the range of supports which are provided for children. Increases of 6% or more in overall child income support are being made available in this budget through a combination of child benefit, qualified child increases, back to school clothing and footwear allowance and the early child care supplement. It also provides for increases in the threshold for family income supplement by €10 per week for each child, which will result in payments increasing by €6 a week per child. These improvements will benefit 26,500 existing families and will entitle a further 2,700 families to the payment.

I agree with previous speakers that the Minister should continue to examine the payments made under the back to school allowance scheme. As I said during the debate on last week's Budget Statement, I am critical of those local authorities which ambush tenants after increases have been announced. Somebody should grasp that nettle.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to welcome this important legislation. The social welfare package of €900 million provided for in the Bill represents almost half of the Government's current expenditure. I am pleased that we will spend so much money in this area. I congratulate the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on the package. Like his colleagues, I am sure he has had many tough meetings with the Minister for Finance in recent months. All Ministers tried to get as much as they could for their areas of responsibility. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, has worked hard at a time of tightening finances to ensure he could deliver respectable increases across the board to social welfare recipients. An example of the welcome measures which are being put in place is the increase in the old age pension. The Taoiseach has made the provision of such increases a core value of Fianna Fáil. The last Administration kept its promise to increase the pension to €200 per week. The current programme for Government sets out an ambitious target of €300 per week. I am delighted that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, has started to work towards meeting that target by providing for a generous increase of €14 per week, which is very welcome.

While I do not intend to patronise the Minister, it is worth mentioning the service given to backbenchers by the Minister's office and the other offices in the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin and throughout the country. Much of the work of Deputies involves trying to deal with the thousands of queries we receive each year. The queries need to be dealt with quickly because in many cases people depend on getting payments which have been delayed or on qualifying for various schemes. It is important that we have an efficient system for dealing with such cases. It is important to recognise that at this point. All Deputies have experience of tabling parliamentary questions or making representations to the Minister's office and we usually get an efficient acknowledgement of our query, followed by a holding letter and then a quick final response.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Durkan, who has criticised certain State agencies on a number of occasions for not providing a satisfactory service. I state clearly that such a service is the least we require and deserve.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I expect that many Deputies will speak about carers during this debate. I do not want to patronise those who provide care in the home when I point out that they play a huge role in Irish society. Various reports which have been published over the years have found that the best place to care for old people is in their own homes. Many supports are available to facilitate such care — grants are paid to help to make homes habitable and comfortable, for example. I welcome the continued development of the carer's allowance and carer's benefit schemes, as well as the respite care grant programme. Respite is of huge importance to carers as they often have to look after others 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is important that carers are able to avail of respite care grants so they can place their elderly parents or loved ones in care at certain times.

Like Deputy O'Connor, I will be somewhat parochial by referring to my parish, where there is a respite care centre that is probably the only one of its kind in the country. While those who run it do so on a voluntary basis, they get some support from the statutory bodies. It was the brainchild of the local community council and it provides a fantastic service. Carers are able to bring their elderly relatives to stay in one of the facility's 20 beds for one, two or three weeks at a time. It is fantastic. We should have more of these throughout the country as they are good value for money. In many cases HSE establishments do not have enough beds. This is something that should be considered in future.

The qualified adult allowance is very important. As a result of changes in the personal pension rate, more than 42,000 pensioner couples will see their household income increase by up to €41 per week, or nearly 11%, next year. This is welcome. The total social welfare support for a contributory pensioner couple receiving the fuel allowance will exceed €23,000, an increase of almost €2,200 over the pre-budget position. This is welcome.

I refer again briefly to carers in the home and the tremendous service they are providing. The alternative is for people to put their elderly parents and loved ones in residential care. We all know what is happening in this area. I am slightly digressing, but I am disappointed that legislation on the new nursing home support scheme, A Fair Deal, which was due to come before the House in the next couple of weeks, will not be dealt with before Christmas. This new system is intended to remove the discrimination that exists currently in this area of long-stay care. There are many thousands of people out there who want to see the playing field levelled. I am amazed that action has not been taken against the State in this area. Elderly people were cared for well and lovingly in our public hospitals, and we are paying back millions of euro totally unnecessarily, while relatives who must make up a shortfall on a weekly or monthly basis are being crippled by nursing home charges. It is totally unfair.

If two neighbours are living side by side, one may be fortunate enough to receive a bed in a public facility, paying part of his or her pension on a weekly basis for their good care, while the other, if not as fortunate, may have to enter a private nursing home, paying anything up to €1,000 per week. This puts a huge burden on the children in that family. There may be five or six siblings, of whom three or four do not bother to help but leave the other two or three to carry the can. It is important this legislation is introduced at the earliest possible date. I accept the point about the need for a full debate and engagement with the process, but I do not want to see this Bill delayed further because the current blatant discrimination needs to be removed from the system.

I have no difficulty with people being asked to pay nursing home charges subsequent to the death of a loved one if they can afford to pay it out of the estate of the deceased. People would gladly pay back 5% afterwards rather than being put under the financial strain of paying on a weekly basis while trying to put their own children through college and pay their day-to-day expenses. The sooner this legislation is introduced the better. I look forward to making a contribution in that regard when the time comes as I would welcome a levelling of the playing field.

Overall, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, have done a wonderful job at a time of tightened financial resources. We can always criticise the substance of increases. If there is an increase of €14, someone will ask why there was not an increase of €15. However, we must understand that every €1 increase adds up to a huge amount of money across the range of schemes. While increases can be given here and there, people will always criticise, especially the Opposition. If the criticism is constructive I do not have any problem with it. However, the previous two Governments have a great track record in supporting social welfare recipients. I am glad that at a time of straitened financial circumstances we are still in a position to do this and to continue supporting the most vulnerable in our society.

I looked at the document presented to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs by Fr. Seán Healy this afternoon. There were many positive comments welcoming the increases and changes we saw in the recent budget. Fr. Healy made an intervention a couple of years ago in which he appealed to the Government to be more focused on social welfare. However, the targets set for increases have mostly been met. At a time when our finances are not as plentiful as they were over the last number of years, I am delighted the Minister was able to secure such a decent and respectable increase in social welfare spending. I commend the Bill.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share time with my colleague, Deputy Leo Varadkar.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Agreed, in the words of a former Member of this House.

The previous speaker commented on the responsiveness of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and its willingness not to avoid questions. It is very seldom that questions are referred back to us as being, allegedly, not the responsibility of the Minister. Effectively, this means the Minister is responsible for everything, so in future we will put down questions to the Minister on every subject. I compliment the Minister and the staff of the Department on the long-established tradition whereby replies to questions are given virtually instantly, within four days. My view has always been that it costs less to answer a question quickly than to answer it over a period of a few months, with three or four letters exchanged in each direction. This is good practice and should be copied by other Departments.

In general, I welcome the positive aspects of the Bill. However, it is a bit like the curate's egg. I can find little bits here and there that could do with improvement. The time has come to reconsider means tests. I know they are updated on a fairly regular basis but the reviews should be carried out more often, at least every six months. The means test should take account of inflation and the income limits should be kept to a realistic level to ensure people are not disadvantaged due to increases in the cost of living and so on.

I have some concerns about the rent support system. The means by which rent supplement is determined leaves a lot to be desired. I have many constituents, as does every Member of the House including the Minister, who is in a much better position than anyone else to do something about it, who are affected by this. In my constituency, rents went up by €200 to €300 per month in the last three months. No account was taken of this in the determination of rent supplement under the current system. The fact that the level of rent allowed for is being rigidly maintained means parents, family or others must support the people paying rent. Alternatively, those using the system tell the supplementary welfare officer that the rent is less than it is and then make up the difference by various means. This is a dangerous route to pursue. People become vulnerable to falling foul of moneylenders or other unscrupulous people who offer them the support needed but at a price. It is this price that causes the problem. It goes up with the passage of time and if the victims fall behind on repayments it rises further. I urge the Minister to consider this as a matter of extreme urgency and investigate whether it is possible to increase the ceiling of eligibility for rent supplement or find a way to make sure that landlords do not take advantage of the system. The rent allowed for should be increased to ensure applicants are treated in a fairer and more equitable fashion than at present because they are coming under pressure.

Various people mentioned carers. This is an area we could spend a whole day talking about and one which needs to be dealt with to a greater extent than has been done by the Minister or his predecessor. We must recognise the problem, which is that carers the length and breadth of the country are providing a service that would otherwise have to be provided in an institution at massively greater cost. In fact, the cost per day would be similar to the cost of caring at home for a month or more.

I hope we will be given the opportunity to return to this debate at a later stage.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure you will.