Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I second the motion. I thank Senator Terry for tabling it and consistently raising this matter on behalf of the Fine Gael group. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Brennan, to the House. He is aware that the Department over which he has control rarely initiates legislation; the significant Bill every year is the Social Welfare Bill which follows the budget. It is difficult for Members on both sides to cram everything into one Bill every year. I welcome the opportunity to debate with the Minister many of these anomalies highlighted by Senator Terry in her motion.

I was very encouraged by the Minister's remarks since becoming what used to be called the Minister for Social Welfare. He has shown an ability to think outside the box. Speaking as a former spokesperson in this area I am aware the Department is an administrative one. The Minister's job is to administer schemes that have been built up over the years since the first Social Welfare Bill went through the Houses. A change in one part of the social welfare code has a knock-on effect on other parts of the code. In this regard the Minister has spoken bravely about the problems for lone parents and poverty traps. In the context of preparing the budget I ask him to deal with the issues raised by Senator Terry.

It is a disgrace that older women who were forced out of the public service workforce by the marriage bar are not entitled to a pension in their own right. The State forced these women out of jobs. In many cases they might have gone on to become assistant secretaries and Secretaries General of Departments. Some 40 years on, these women have no recognition by the State of that great injustice done to them. The group is getting smaller each year because of the age cohort. This is a matter which should be addressed.

A more modern issue which affects both men and women is the choice made for one spouse, usually the woman, to leave the labour market for a period of approximately eight or nine years in order to work at home raising their children. This is a conscious choice made by parents. We are often told that every modern couple has a double income but that is not the case. Approximately 50% of such couples choose to have a spouse stay at home. The financial consequences of such a decision are that one cannot move to a more well-to-do area, go to the Canaries three times a year or put money aside for the children to go to private schools, if these are the choices. The State needs to recognise that not all households have two incomes. When families decide, for whatever reason, that one spouse will stay at home for eight or nine years to raise children, the State has a responsibility to recognise their decision. In this scenario, the person who stays at home should be entitled to continue to make contributions to the PRSI system. I do not suggest they get something for nothing but that they be allowed to contribute to the social insurance fund, which is, at any rate, enjoying a massive surplus. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House as to the current position of the fund, which I understand has been healthy for some years.

If women who look after children during their formative years were allowed to contribute to the PRSI system, they could perhaps pay a higher stamp if they subsequently choose to return to the labour market. It is immoral that eight years spent at home caring for children can be considered irrelevant in terms of reckonable pension contributions. This approach prevents people from making choices and fails to recognise families who decide to rely on one income. Those who stay at home, the vast majority of whom are women, must be facilitated. This group is not confined to women aged in their 50s or 60s but includes women with children who consciously decide that they may be able to afford to stay at home and look after their children. The families in question do not always have large incomes.

In introducing tax individualisation, the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, also established the home carer's tax credit to recognise those who choose to stay at home to care for a child or dependent relative. This credit has not been increased in five years. While there is no doubt, as the amendment notes, that every family has benefited from increases in personal and PAYE tax credits, two-income couples have fared much better proportionally from these annual increases than one-income families. If it was correct to introduce a tax credit as a means of recognising home carers, why has the Government failed to increase the home carer's tax credit in any of the five years since Mr. McCreevy's third budget which introduced tax individualisation? The Government, if it is sincere in supporting all income and family types, must address this issue.

I welcome the decision to cease using the despicable phrase "adult dependant" in the social welfare system and replace it with the term "qualifying adult". Senator Terry made a valid point in this regard. Although persons receiving the qualifying adult rate can obtain the payment directly, one could argue that they should receive it automatically and as of right. Relationships being as they are, a woman who receives this payment on a weekly or monthly basis through the social welfare code has a right to it. I do not suggest that the State should act as the eyes and ears of families but if a person is entitled to a payment, he or she should receive it as of right. The low take-up referred to by Senator Terry is a matter of concern.

While I welcome the continuing reduction in the once significant disparity between contributory and non-contributory old age pensions, much of it can be ascribed to the fact that women were forced out of work.

If one group of women has been badly let down by successive Governments, it is widows, particularly young widows. The provisions made for women who find themselves widowed are appalling. Like me, the Minister will have encountered numerous tragic cases in which a husband has died prematurely leaving a young widow at the head of a family. Much more needs to do done for widows and I ask the Minister to ensure action is taken when the social welfare provisions of the budget are being framed. It is often argued that the level of paid contributions will have been insignificant and having a differential scheme would, therefore, be wrong. However, losing a spouse at a young age is an unexpected, albeit infrequent, event.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Minister before he frames the social welfare package. I ask him to consider the points raised in this debate and deliver equity, fairness and decency in the social welfare system while ensuring it does not discriminate against women.