Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I thank the Minister for her presentation earlier, and I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, to the House. The Minister said there was a need for foreign workers, who are welcome, but the habitual residence test sends out a different message. I wonder if such a test is required. Perhaps the Government should have waited to see what measures were actually required to address any social welfare abuses that may arise. Will such a test deter people from coming here or result in some people being sent home whom we should not repatriate? We have made mistakes in the past in our treatment of people coming here to work, such as nurses, because we did not allow their spouses to work here also. As a result we lost foreign nurses whose expertise was badly needed here.

Workers from the new accession states will not be tied in to the work permits system so they should be able to change jobs. However, anyone who changes job can be unemployed in the interim, so where will such people stand? They and their children will be discriminated against under the social welfare system. I have no problem with measures aimed at tackling social welfare abuses but I wonder whether the Minister's proposals will deal with such abuses or will penalise workers from the accession states while social welfare abuses by others continue.

I also wonder about the tests involved, including employment prospects. The situation concerns people who might be here for more than two years; will they also be subject to tests? Who will be affected by these provisions and will they be more far-reaching than the Government intends them to be? The proposal should be reviewed because it is premature.

I support Senator Norris's comments concerning the qualified adult administrative scheme. There is an anomaly in the legislation in terms of making a moral judgment. We have no problem in recognising unmarried, mixed sex couples, yet we are not prepared to do the same for same sex couples. Senator Norris outlined the moral reasons for not having this provision but there are also social reasons. People in mutually supportive relationships should be looked after but this provision is a backward step as it undoes a court judgment which found, for good reasons, that the State should act in a particular way. I refer to amendments to inheritance tax provisions. If one member of a same sex or opposite sex couple dies and they have lived in a house for a specific period and fulfilled certain requirements, the surviving member does not pay inheritance tax. There are social reasons for this apart from compassionate reasons. A person should not be thrown out of a house he or she shared with his or her partner because he or she had to pay a major inheritance tax bill. That was a progressive step and nobody complained about it. Similar logic should be applied to this provision. The people involved in such long-term relationships are vulnerable and dependent and we must look out for them. Discrimination should not come into play.

This provision also differs from the Government's approach to pension provisions. Where a scheme pays partners of the opposite sex, it must also pay partners of the same sex and the Government is doing this for social reasons. It is positive from a societal point of view to look after those who have been in supportive relationships, regardless of their sexual orientation. The Government is prepared to do this in regard to pensions. However, in general, couples who are not married can be discriminated against and the Minister said this would be reviewed. I would very much welcome a review as soon as possible.

She also stated this provision is an interim measure and the Government will review it but that may take years. I urge that it be reviewed as soon as possible. While I do not agree with it, I do not understand why it should take years, given that the Government introduces other radical measures quickly when it wants to. I do not understand the reasoning behind that.

Opposite sex couples can take up various schemes that same sex couples cannot but such couples often lose out in terms of social welfare because they are treated as a unit. Same sex non-married couples do not benefit from the tax breaks to which married couples are entitled and that needs to be examined down the line. They are penalised in two contradictory ways.

I welcome the increases in income limits for eligibility for carer's allowance and so on. However, four months after the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs recommended the means test for carer's allowance should be abolished, the Government did nothing and it should give priority to this recommendation.

Reference has been made to the 16 savage cuts, including those being implemented against widows and lone parents. The savings made by these cuts will be minimal and the cost of reversing them would be minimal. I urge, therefore, that the Minister should, like the Minister for Education and Science, ask the Government and the Minister for Finance to find the necessary money to reverse them.