Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

From what some Members have said, one would think this cutback was the Opposition's idea and not the Government's. I do not believe the Department of Finance was involved in this cutback. It got through because someone did not keep their eye on the ball. The full implications were not thought out when it was delivered to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I make that charge with full knowledge of the complexity of the social welfare system, having been social welfare spokesperson in the other House for two years.

Mistakes are made and this is one of them. The proposal was not properly thought out and it must, therefore, be reviewed urgently. Last night, the Minister, after a good meeting with the National Association of Widows in Ireland, said she would come back to it. It will be fine if she says that she will move on this issue over Easter when the Houses are in recess so as not to be seen to be kowtowing to the Opposition before tonight's vote on a Private Members' motion in the Dáil. However, she must clarify the position on the cutback today, particularly in respect of the meeting held last night.

In her response to the Second Stage debate, she claimed she would look at other ways to resolve this issue. In her reply today, I want her to outline what other ways she is talking about. My prediction yesterday remains the same: the Government will cave in on this proposal. However, the caving in will happen when the House is not in session at Easter so that the full ire of the Opposition cannot be brought to bear. It is important that the widows and widowers know their position on this cutback. It is equally important that the Minister replies to this debate in that vein.

The argument the Minister's officials are giving her on this proposal is that one cannot be entitled to two schemes. The fundamental tenet of the Department of Social and Family Affairs is that one can get the highest paid scheme but not both. However, former Ministers will receive ministerial and Oireachtas pensions if they are out of the Houses at 50 years of age. They receive two pension schemes which are not delivered by the Department of Social and Family Affairs but which we in both Houses accepted. If the principle for politicians who have gone through the Houses with distinguished service is that they are entitled to an Oireachtas pension and a ministerial pension, the same principle should extend to widows.

Some years ago when I attempted to extend the free schemes for widows, I was informed that it could not be done as it would open the floodgates and one group cannot be distinguished from another in the social welfare code. If it is the resolve of both Houses that widows are a distinct group of people who must receive support from the social welfare code, then it can be done. It would be a brave Minister to stand up to the advice that she is getting on this issue. The Minister will probably say that the number of people affected by this proposal is minimal. Yet, it could have an effect on 120,000 widows and widowers. This is a growing group. While the figure is relatively small at present, there is huge potential for it to have a negative effect on a significant group of people.

Before the 2002 election, the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, raided the social insurance fund to the tune of €500 million to ensure that the election was bought. If the Government in 2002 could take €500 million from a fund designated for the workers of this country, I cannot understand why it cannot give the paltry sum of €5.8 million to resolve this issue. The moneys for the social insurance fund come from PRSI contributions. Widows and widowers, as well as their deceased spouses, paid into that system. It should be there for them when they need it most, in their hour of need. This is the kind of measure that highlights that particular hour of need.

What comfort will the Minister give to the National Association of Widows in Ireland? I ask her to make a statement to the House in respect of her discussions with that group. If she is telling the House that she will make her U-turn on this issue in two weeks, that is fine. We can live with that and will be delighted to hear it on Good Friday. However, I do not want people led further up the garden path on this issue. Senator Wilson's fascinating thesis on the contrasts in the social consciences of the Fianna Fáil Party at constituency level and in the Houses is one I intend to read in the future. However, I do not want his colleagues at the weekend issuing statements to the local newspapers shedding crocodile tears on how awful these cutbacks are and how they will do the divil and all to ensure a U-turn on it while opposing my colleagues' amendments to the Bill today.