Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister. In November 2003 the Minister announced 16 cutbacks in various social welfare benefits. We on this side of the House highlighted the difficulties that would arise as a result of many of these cuts but she ploughed ahead. Typically of this Government, the Minister targeted the less well-off and marginalised sectors of the community while creating tax breaks for the rich and powerful. This is par for the course for Fianna Fáil and, of course, the PDs, whose members do not even pretend to have a social conscience any longer.

Widows and widowers are often forgotten people in this country. What was the Minister thinking when she slashed — she may prefer the word "adjusted" — the allocation for widows and widowers? This will cause hardship for more than 2,000 people. Working widows who are paying full PRSI contributions should be entitled to full disability or unemployment benefit when they need it. Entitlement for new claimants to the half-rate payment has been discontinued, which is an absolute disgrace. This will result in estimated savings of €5.8 million in 2004 and €12 million in a full year. How can the Minister justify this action when the social insurance fund is €1.3 billion in surplus and when public finances were found to be better off by €500 million a week after the announcement of these cuts?

Is there any sense of justice or fairness left in this Government? Even at this stage the cutbacks targeting widows and widowers could be reversed. Surely the Minister or her masters in the Department of Finance must recognise that this cutback is not fair. The National Association of Widows in Ireland has vowed to take this issue to Brussels if it does not obtain satisfaction. I appeal to the Minister to have a heart and admit she made a mistake. I understand from today's newspaper that she is meeting the widows' association today. Perhaps she could let us know the outcome later. I hope she will reconsider her decision.

The Minister also withdrew certain social welfare entitlements from same-sex couples recently. The change goes against the High Court ruling which resulted in gay couples winning the same entitlements to non-statutory benefits, such as free travel and free electricity, as married couples. In statutory payments, married couples are also discriminated against. If both partners are in receipt of benefits, one partner receives significantly less than the other for no other reason than that he or she wears a wedding ring. Same-sex couples both receive 100% of statutory benefit payments. It is of little comfort to widows, widowers and lone parents to know they are not alone in being discriminated against by the Government. They are part of a much larger and fast-growing group of forgotten people who are suffering the brunt of the Government's pre-election spending binge. I implore the Minister to reconsider her decision and reverse these shameful cutbacks, which will inflict much hardship on the poorer sections of our community.

The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill has some very positive aspects which are to be welcomed, although it is my duty as Opposition spokesperson to highlight its inadequacies and raise issues which require greater priority and attention. I particularly welcome the extension of the period in which benefits are paid to a surviving spouse on the death of a person receiving benefits. That income was withdrawn immediately upon the death of a person receiving benefit added to the grief of the surviving spouse and resulted in many cases in economic hardship for the household. In section 8, which deals with maternity benefit, I welcome the reduction of the period of pre-confinement from four weeks to two weeks. The suggestion came from this House during discussion of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill. I am glad the Minister is prepared to listen to the laudable and constructive suggestions made in this House.

One of the most neglected groups in society, which also suffers the greatest stress, consists of those who care for ill and disabled family members. The financial and social sacrifices they make save the Exchequer billions of euro because without their care, love and hard work, many more people would have to be cared for in Government-funded care facilities. The increase of €100 in the respite grant is welcome, as is the doubling of this figure for a person caring for two people. In some cases people look after three or more people and I ask that they also receive a pro rata increase. It would be extremely unfair if this did not happen. For the amount of people involved, the cost would be negligible.

The cost of buying a week or fortnight's care in any nursing home is increasing at an alarming rate at a time when the Government is giving generous tax breaks to developers of private nursing homes. While this policy may address the lack of capacity in public hospitals, some mechanism must be found to compel the people who benefit from these tax breaks to cap the amount they can charge for beds in these establishments, especially for relatives of people in receipt of a respite grant who require a badly needed break and at a time of the year when they see fit to take such a break.

I am firmly of the view that there should be a shift of caring resources towards home care and that a home-based subvention system should be established. It would be far better for sick or disabled people to be looked after in their own home and environment with a proper support system.

The current system has an in-built bias towards institutional care. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs which produced a report on carers in November last year. It forcefully recommended the need to introduce an integrated care subvention scheme to maximise support for home care. This recommendation accords with the view of the Government as expressed in the health strategy documents but action rather than words or reports is now required.

The increases in child benefit amount to approximately 20 cent a day. This Government and the Minister for Finance, in particular, gave a solemn commitment to increase child benefit rates by 2005 to €149.90 for the first and second child and €185.40 for the third and subsequent children. The gap to be filled in budget 2005 is €18.30 and €20.10, respectively, and I hope this promise is honoured and not abandoned like so many other promises made by the Government.

The real value of the increase in child benefit can be judged after taking into account the effect of inflation which according to the budget will be 2.5%. Looking at the rates for the first and second child, inflation erodes €3.14 of the monthly increase. The real increases for children is therefore only €2.86 a month, which equates to 66 cent a week and 10 cent a day. I ask the Minister if this is a suitable response to Ireland's child poverty problem.

To quote the Children's Rights Alliance, "Despite the availability of resources, Child Benefit was increased less than half of what is required just to keep pace with the commitments made in Sustaining Progress." The negative impact from failing to provide the necessary child income support to meet the 2007 child poverty target is aggravated by the 16 cuts the Minister is implementing and the failure of the Government to meet the commitment contained in the health strategy in 2001 to extend medical card eligibility to a further 200,000 households. There are thousands fewer people eligible for medical cards now compared to when this commitment was given. The Taoiseach gave a commitment prior to the last election that 200,000 extra households would be eligible for medical cards. This is another promise on medical cards which has not been fulfilled.

The cuts in supplementary welfare allowances such as rent, crèche and diet supplements further compound the income poverty and lack of access to services experienced by many Irish children. The child dependant allowance, which is targeted at children in families in deepest poverty, was frozen for the ninth consecutive year. According to the Combat Poverty Agency, the value of the child dependant allowance has decreased by 25% in real terms since 1994.

I will not deal in detail with each of the 16 cuts the Minister signed into law in January but each and every one of them is inflicting unnecessary hardship on the weakest members of society. It is the Minister's duty and that of this House to ensure these people are protected. I suggest that the Minister is failing the poor and the marginalised in this instance.

On the issue of the personal public service number, I welcome the inclusion of the additional agencies outlined in section 11 which are authorised by legislation to use the PPS number as a public service identification. I hope the personal information contained will continue to be confidential and used only by agencies for the purpose for which it is intended.

As our population ages, successive Governments have been making provision for the increasing numbers in the pension age group over the next 20 years. The PRSA scheme has been put forward as the main solution to the pension problem. While it is early days yet to have any definite news on the uptake, I ask the Minster to indicate the compliance of employers in providing access to PRSAs for their employees.

This Bill is very comprehensive and very technical in many areas. The sections which affect individuals and families will be those raised at politicians' clinics around the country. "A lot more to do" is certainly an apt slogan where social welfare is concerned.