Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Brennan, and his officials to the House and commend them on the effort they put into preparing this Bill. We often raise issues on this side of the House which might not be perceived to be at the level at which they are. As I have said during many debates, it is important when there is an opportunity to praise a Bill as we pass it that we should do so. I will not found wanting in that regard.

It is important that we acknowledge the increases for what they are. We need to be mindful that the country can afford to make these changes. The Minister effected real increases in a number of areas, on a number of which I will touch. Such changes mean a great deal to many people, particularly those on the margins of society who are dependent on such payments. This issue is close to the heart of the Labour Party and has been very much part of our philosophy. Various representatives of the party have been in the Department and we have always intended to effect change there. We have been endeared to this Department as a caring Department. We have always strove to ensure that people on the margins are properly looked after by the State. It is important to make that point, and I believe the Minister, Deputy Brennan, takes the same line.

I wish to deal with the one-parent family payment for people who take up holiday or occasional work. The Minister made a change in this respect. The income disregard meant that people would lose their benefits if they took up occasional or holiday work. That resulted in such people losing out and Department officials had to spend time dealing with re-applications for such benefit. That was bureaucratic, involved further administration and a cost. The Minister rightly examined this measure, weighed up the pros and cons and recognised the benefit in terms of the change he introduced is more worthwhile than allowing the status quo to remain. It is important to make that point.

If a strict interpretative line had been taken on this measure, it would not have been helpful to the Department from a cost of point of view in terms of dealing with re-applications. Nor would it have been helpful to the applicant who would lose out on his or her payment, suffer distress because of it and bear the unnecessary burden of re-applying for the benefit. It is welcome that the Minister has dealt with this measure and I commend him on it.

The duration of the carer's benefit is being extended by nine months. We must understand there is resistance to that from some quarters. The Minister and the Department have rightly resisted that opposition and have taken a brave decision. A recipient of the carer's allowance being able to work 15 hours a week may not seem significant to many people but it is important to those who can avail of such care. When one considers the vested interests in the sector which would be affected by this change, the strong lobbying power some people have and that some employers will be unhappy about the change, it must be recognised as an innovative and welcome measure taken in the face of some resistance and opposition. Such resistance might not be visible on the surface but it exists.

We have a buoyant economy. In recent times we have heard the term that the country is awash with money. Once upon a time Ministers in Departments did not have money to make the changes or increases they wished to make and that led to difficulties. We had a high unemployment rate, a high level of emigration and interest rates were sky high. It was a very different economy from today. It is important to make the point that the fact that money is available means we can at least introduce real meaningful changes. Not so many budgets ago money was not available to do what needed to be done.

However, we need to be mindful that the proportion of national income we spend on social protection ranks as one of the lowest in European terms. EUROSTAT 2004 data show that the EU average spend on social protection is approximately 25%. Sweden is at the top end of the scale with a spend of 31% while we, unfortunately, languish at the bottom end with a spend of 15% to 18%. While numerically that is a considerable amount, we need to be mindful that other member states rank higher than us on that scale.

Equality and anti-poverty measures form the hallmark of our philosophy in this area. Reflecting on the level of Exchequer returns and the huge economic success we have experienced, we should not forget that many people have not been brought along with the rising tide and, therefore, have not benefited in the same way as others. For example, extremely rich people benefited from tax breaks in recent times but we need to be clear about the fact that many people on the margins did not share in our economic prosperity. Such people have every right to share in it. We should not allow just one section of the community to benefit from tax incentive schemes which are designed to advance projects like hotels and nursing homes. Other members of the community — I refer to the ordinary customers of the Department of Social and Family Affairs — should be assisted too.

A great deal of change continues to be required in the administration of social welfare schemes. Women are sometimes not treated equally by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The mindset of departmental officials, who tend to assume that the main breadwinner in a family unit is always male, needs to change dramatically. Gender equality demands that women should have equal access to opportunities not only in the jobs market, but also in this area. It is very important that the point I have made should be taken on board. The participation of women in employment is a key factor in eliminating child poverty. We need to bear in mind that of all household types, households with lone parents are at the highest risk of falling into the poverty trap. The social welfare code needs to be changed to reflect greater equality. We need equality for everyone, rather than just for people in one sector of the community.

I would like to conclude by raising two issues. A man in his mid-20s in my locality who recently applied for an allowance under the important and innovative back to education scheme when he was starting a postgraduate course in UCC found that he was disqualified, in administrative terms, after the course title was changed. He was trying to better himself and promote himself by returning to university to acquire another skill. The Exchequer receives a return from such people when they return to the workforce and pay tax at the higher rate. The man in question was distressed to learn that the change in the course title meant he did not qualify for the back to education scheme. It made the difference between him being able to take the course and him not being able to do so. I communicated the details of the case to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which made the necessary changes, thankfully, to ensure that the man now qualifies for the scheme. The Department's intervention has made a huge difference to the individual in question. I thank the departmental officials for the interest they showed in the case. It is right that the application was dealt with by the Department in such a manner because it was beyond the control of the student.

I spoke about disability benefit and disability allowance the last time the Minister, Deputy Brennan, was in the House. I do not think the case I wish to raise is unique or rare because it is likely there are many other such cases throughout the country. The case in question involves an individual who suffers from chronic depression, to the extent that he cannot leave his home. He is receiving good care and protection from his family, he is on good medication and he has a good general practitioner. When he was ready to come back out and beat the illness in question, he applied for disability allowance and disability benefit, only to find that he qualified for neither. He appealed that decision, by which time he had recovered sufficiently from his medical condition.

In the course of the appeal the man in question was seen by a doctor from the Department who could have been more Christian in dealing with the applicant, who felt aggrieved about the manner in which he was treated. It is important to remember every now and then that it does not cost anything to be nice. The doctor in question should have used some sensitivity and discretion, which are required in some circumstances in dealing with applicants. The doctor rejected the man's appeal on the basis that he had recovered because he looked well and seemed fine. The matter is now being dealt with at a further level. I have raised this case with the Department of Social and Family Affairs, with the appeals office and in the House.

We need to be very careful in instances like the one I have raised. The man in question was genuinely ill. He was certified as suffering from a horrible illness and he had medical documentation to support that. The manner in which the rules and regulations of the Department of Social and Family Affairs were applied as he made his case within the system ensured that he was kept out of the loop, which is not ideal.

We need to be very careful about the nature of the dreadful illness in question. The man had to be helped to apply for the schemes, but he now feels vilified as he deals with rejection. It was not very nice for him to have such an experience after he had beaten an illness of this nature. I appreciate that there is an issue in terms of contributions — the man in question might qualify in January. If the Department is to be caring in its dealings with people who are suffering from an illness or left out of the loop, changes need to be made so that people like the man in question are provided for.

I accept there is a need for checks and balances to ensure that the system is not abused, but we need to be more humane in how we deal with certain cases. The Department's doctor did not treat the applicant in this instance in a very good manner. I hope something can be done to ensure that people who suffer from an illness like depression are not rejected by an arm of the State when they try to avail of the system. The manner in which the man in question was dealt with was not ideal.

I welcome the increases which are provided for in this Bill. It is important, in a parliamentary democracy, that we meet our duty to admit that a good deal is being offered and that the increases are meaningful. I would like to see much more, however. There is an ongoing political debate about the other areas in which change can be effected. Many people will be better off as a result of this legislation.

I thank the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and his officials for the time and effort they have put into the compilation of this Bill. It is worthwhile to note that the Minister has taken on board some of the points which were made in previous debates in this House, the result of which is reflected in this legislation.