Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Coughlan. She said in her statement she is proud of the commitment to fostering an inclusive society. If this particular Social Welfare Bill is her contribution to an inclusive society, what about the 16 cutbacks included in it? Considering any one of them, or all together, if this is what inclusiveness amounts to in the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats agenda, then God help those who are really in hardship.

It is obvious from what we have heard from the Government representatives here today that there are winds of change, particularly in the situation of widows and widowers. It would be great if the Minister would clearly indicate in her concluding speech at the end of Second Stage that she will change this aspect, which for very many people is a serious encroachment on the inclusivity to which she referred. The Minister is causing great hardship, particularly to vulnerable people. She might indicate at an early stage that she is changing her mind, because many of the Senators who contributed on the Government side of the debate clearly do not agree with the current situation. They do not know what will be done, but will impress their feelings on the Minister when she decides to change that aspect of the Bill. We would greatly welcome the change on this side of the House. The hardships resulting from this aspect of the Bill have been highlighted in the media, in this House and in the Dáil.

The Minister has all but abolished the back to education allowance scheme. It was a very valuable scheme, of great benefit to people who perhaps in the past were, for some reason or another, excluded from the education system, or who have had to leave it because of the inadequacies of the support mechanisms there for the underprivileged and disadvantaged. I do not know how the Minister can reconcile her abolition of the back to education allowance scheme with the stated policy. Without a doubt, the scheme has now been effectively abolished. How can the Minister for Social and Family Affairs reconcile this with the stated policy of the Minister for Education and Science who wants to bring disadvantaged people back into the system? On the one hand, the Minister cannot say he wants to bring people back into the system while another organ of Government excludes people from it. People are too alert to this Government doublespeak.

In his 2003 budget speech, the Minister for Finance announced a rural social scheme. It was not to come under the brief of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, but of the other coastal and island Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív. However, when I tried to ascertain at the Departments of Finance and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs what has happened to this scheme, I discovered no one knew about it and that there are not even application forms. Instead, we are informed it will shortly come before Cabinet. The Minister for Finance in December 2003 announced a scheme that people believed was prepared and agreed by various Departments. However, there is no sign of it. It will happen sometime in the future as the Department of Finance, in a cynical way, informs us that Cabinet will agree to it in late April or early May. Lo and behold, it will be announced and put into action just before the local and European elections. If one wants to be cynical about Government schemes, that is the way to go about it. There was to be €10 million available for this scheme yet other sources inform us that it will be far more than that figure. As to how many would take up the scheme, the number of applicants was put at 2,500. Now we are informed it could be far more than that. When can we arrive at a consensus as to what is involved in this scheme, rather than it being another political ploy and promise for which there is no basis? I have never seen a scheme announced on such a basis that then takes four months or more to put in place.

The criteria given for this scheme are that one has to be a herdowner, on low income and receiving farm assist. It is all about social inclusion.