Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House. The Social Welfare Bill certainly represents a welcome change to the image of the Government. I compliment the Minister on his input to the Bill, which makes many changes that are of benefit to many people. I recognise the changes he has made to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is a change from last year's budget which did nothing but hit the most vulnerable in our society. I welcome the fact that this Bill recognises them and changes are afoot to improve the lot of many people. While a great deal more needs to be done I believe that with this Minister at the helm things will continue to improve. I acknowledge and welcome some of the positive aspects of this Bill but I must also point out areas where changes could be made to improve social welfare.

I welcome the removal of all national minimum wage earners from the tax net. Despite changes to the tax bands 33% of working people will continue to pay tax at the higher rate. I would like to see some changes to that in the coming years. I welcome the minimum social welfare rate increase and the increase in the non-contributory old age pension. While this is welcome it is lower than was expected, therefore more must be done in the next two years. I also welcome the funding package for people with disabilities and the child benefit increases but more remains to be done in this area to meet the commitment given in Sustaining Progress. Why did the Minister not give a further increase this year? Is he saving the large increase for the year before the general election? It must be given out and could be phased in gradually rather than given as a lump sum or larger increase in the final year which I suspect will happen.

Some of the dreadful cuts made in last year's Bill had a serious impact on very vulnerable families. The Minister has addressed some of those but he has played around with them rather than reversing them although the impression is given that they have been reversed. For example, the qualifying period for the back to education allowance was six months until 2004 when it was increased to 15 months. Now the Minister has put it back to 12 months. While I recognise that he is examining this, I fear he may bring it back to nine months rather than six. The initial advice and consultation leading to the introduction of the allowance was that any period longer than six months was retrogressive. Will the Minister consider reversing that cut?

The transitional half-rate payment for lone parents seems to be only a 50% reversal. In 2004 the transitional half-rate payment for lone parents was to be discontinued where a recipient of one parent family payment took up employment and earned more than the upper threshold of €293 per week. The Minister has amended that by saying one parent family payment recipients are to receive transitional half-rate payment for six months where income exceeds €293 per week. Prior to the cutback transitional half rate payments were given for 12 months. This was a very petty measure. Before the cutback only 580 people claimed this payment but six months after its introduction 120 people were taken off the scheme. What is the figure now?

I welcome some of the changes to the rent supplement scheme but some are ambiguous. According to some voluntary groups that have contacted us, this change means that an individual must prove some form of renting, not necessarily for six months but this amendment does not cover lone parents or people living at home with their parents who want to move out. These people are the most at risk and need to be independent and move out on their own. What form of renting will people be expected to prove to qualify for this scheme?

The special funding of €700,000 to the Money Advice and Budgeting Service is not a full reinstatement of the original cutback. Prior to the cutback this measure cost €700,000 per year; now, instead of reversing this payment, the Government is giving a once-off payment of the same amount but only 370 people availed of it. I welcome the Minister's reversal of the cutback in the diet supplement. However, I am concerned that he has commissioned a report which may suggest a reduction or restriction of this supplement. Why does the Minister feel another report is necessary?

The changes to the child dependant allowance are not a reversal for everyone who was receiving this before the 2004 cuts. By June of this year, six months after the introduction of this cutback, the number of people receiving such a payment was reduced by 17,000, from 63,000 to 46,000. In his press release on budget day the Minister claimed that his amendment would benefit approximately 4,600 families. This is a 30% reversal, and the figure could be much worse given that the latest available figures for this cutback cover only the first six months of the year.

Several organisations have contacted Senators with their responses to the budget, many of which were complimentary. Nevertheless, they point to some areas where further improvements could have been made and I agree with those. Community Platform, a collective of 26 national organisations, working against poverty and inequality, stated that the budget was a relatively positive one for adults but it completely ignored the needs of children, especially those living in poverty. It stated the Minister failed to meet the Sustaining Progress commitment on child benefit and should have given €18 to the first and second children. Sharon Keane of Community Platform said: "This Government continues to ignore the 66,000 children it acknowledges are living in poverty. . . . This is the second Minister for Finance in succession to break this promise."

She added that the lack of affordable child care places a significant burden on working parents and must be tackled as a priority. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has announced a package on child care. That is a major issue which is not directly within the remit of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs although he is probably trying to deal with it under child benefit.

The lack of affordable child care is a significant issue that I would like to see the Government tackle at the earliest opportunity. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has said that child benefit falls short of the Government's own commitment to reach €149 per month in this budget and pushes out the fulfilment of that commitment to the 2006 budget. I agree that it should have increased child benefit this year by more.

The child dependant portion of the social welfare payments has remained frozen for the 11th year in a row, although eligibility has been widened so that 4,600 extra families will qualify. I cannot understand why, over the past 11 years, that payment has not been increased. The families who get it are the most vulnerable. Not all families will benefit from the changes that the Minister has made this year.

There has been no increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, something that I find surprising. There is a problem of some families not claiming it, but we can make people aware of the benefits to which they are entitled through the media. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has said that there has been no increase in the qualified adult allowance and that it should be increased from €89.40 per week to €104.86. It also said that social housing had been virtually ignored, with the €66 million allocated providing for only 250 extra social housing units in 2005. That comes at a time when there are 48,000 households on waiting lists.

I wish to again address the issue of child benefit. If we are serious about tackling child poverty, many of the organisations that have contacted us have said the best way to do so is to increase child benefit. The budget offers little hope for the 6,000 men, women and children living in homeless accommodation of ever moving into their own homes. The Children's Rights Alliance has said that child benefit is the principal financial vehicle for supporting families with children. It is also at the heart of the Government's plan to eliminate child poverty. Both objectives — supporting families with children and ending child poverty by 2007 — have been seriously undermined by the Government's failure to keep its promises to raise the amount to €150. Furthermore, policy practice continues to refuse to increase child dependant allowance targeted at families with children in receipt of welfare. The Minister is missing a golden opportunity to move thousands of children out of poverty and improve the lives of thousands more. Those choices are made at the expense of the rights and needs of children. We need to tackle child poverty in this day and age when the country is so well off. We are all aware of many children living in poverty.

The increase in the family income supplement is not enough and, worse still, is not reaching those who need it. Only 12,000 people are getting family income supplement, but any survey of the income figures will show that at least three times as many should be getting it. What can we do to ensure that those families who deserve it get it? Why is it not paid through the tax code, which would at least guarantee that it would reach those who need it?

I welcome the increase in the respite care grant. Also welcome is the removal of the anomaly whereby a person caring for more than two people did not receive the grant for each care recipient. It is about time that was removed. The income disregard for the carer's allowance will result in an additional 1,000 carers qualifying for the payment. The number of carers receiving the carer's allowance will increase from 23,500 in 2004 to 24,500 in 2005. However, it is believed that there are at least 50,000 carers in the country. How do we reach them and ensure that they get what they are entitled to?

I have more to say, but I will have to yield to others who wish to speak. This does not concern the Bill directly. I thank the Minister for attending the House recently to discuss occupational pension schemes. I welcome the fact that in the budget the Minister did not mention any move to let the pensions industry get its hands on the SSIAs. However, the Minister said that he might examine other ways of encouraging people to take out their own occupational pensions, but in such a way that their pensions are protected.