Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews. As I try to live in the land of political reality, I have to accept that at a time of grave economic distress for the country, the social welfare bill, at €20.62 billion, is significant. It behoves all of us, no matter on which side of the political spectrum we reside, to try to recognise this fact. We have a responsibility to explain from where the funding should come. This is a Department which is allowed to make choices and the Minister for Social Protection can support or cut funding for schemes.

I have a difficulty with a number of the measures outlined in the Budget Statement last week. Most speakers have raised the issue of carer's allowance, not simply because of recent media coverage or last night's television programme. All of us are aware of the significant social contribution made by carers the length and breadth of the country. Last night on television a lady reminded us that those in receipt of carer's allowance were the only social welfare recipients who had to work for their money. For instance, a person in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or a disability or invalidity pension is unable to work, but a person in receipt of carer's allowance has to work, perhaps, 140 hours a week to earn that allowance. I was disappointed that carers were not granted the same exemption as old-age pensioners. I recognise the money available to the Minister and his choices are limited, but we have to use the legislation to make a statement on our priorities. There was a time when, if a Minister announced a reduction in child benefit, there would have been a national outcry. Nobody likes to see child benefit rates being reduced, but it was deemed politically and economically achievable on this occasion. Everybody in receipt of carer's allowance is receiving less than €200 a week in assistance, yet the person concerned is saving the State hundreds of euro a week. The nursing homes scheme has been established. However, a large number of people who are eligible for assistance under the fair deal scheme administered by the Department of Health and Children are not benefiting under the scheme because they are able to remain in their own homes because a carer is available, in most cases, a family member. I am disappointed, therefore, that carer's allowance is being reduced. The Government is hitting the vulnerable - the person being cared for and the person providing the care. It is a bad statement of political philosophy and the decision needs to be reviewed as soon as possible.

The social welfare budget is €20.6 billion and no political party has stated it should be increased. The cut made in blind person's pension requires reflection by the Department. The blind person's pension and the carer's allowance schemes should be separated from the general body of cuts made in the budget. We would all prefer if there were no cuts and allowances were increased, but most of us try to live in the land of political and economic reality. We know that difficult choices have to be made, but these two decisions are wrong.

On the other side of the equation, if additional payments are to be made, savings have to be found elsewhere. I note what has been said about the rent allowance scheme. This issue was addressed in the House on previous occasions. Approximately €600 million a year is being paid out under the scheme. When the issue was debated previously, the Minister claimed the scheme represented value for money. It would be if rents were falling, yet they do not seem to be. It would also be value for money if we were able to use it to house a significantly greater number of people. It needs to be reviewed urgently. It is difficult to accept at a time when local authorities have virtually no houses available that tens of thousands of houses are lying empty across the country. It should be possible to marry the vacant houses with the tens of thousands on housing waiting lists in order to reach a reasonable and fair solution.

The rent allowance equation should be part of that solution because I do not believe we are getting the value for money we should be getting for a rent allowance bill of €600 million which should be reviewed and amended. We should be forcing landlords to drive down the rents being charged and I believe there is scope for saving there.

Across the spectrum of social welfare schemes, we must consider rationalisation not in the moneys being spent but on the number of schemes we have. I appreciate it is not possible to have a universal one-size-fits-all social welfare scheme but we need to review the amount of money being lost in administration on a plethora of schemes. Many years ago the former Taoiseach, Dr. FitzGerald, spoke about the concept of a basic income-type social welfare scheme. It was not taken on board even though all the political parties gave it a degree of consideration. The fewer schemes we have, the easier they are to administer, resulting in greater savings. On the basis that the economy will not boom and bloom in the next two to four years, we need to appreciate that the extra benefits that some people desperately require will need to come from within administrative savings and I believe there must be scope in that regard.

The Minister has stated that more than 600 people in the Department are working on fraud, which indicates the size of the problem. Considerable progress appears to have been made in saving on fraudulent payments. I would welcome if those savings could be ploughed back into the system and given to those in genuine need.

I appreciate it is a tough economic time for all of us and especially for those on social welfare. The majority of people on social welfare are stretched to make ends meet at the end of the week. I ask the Minister to reflect once again on the question of carers and blind pensioners who are very disadvantaged by the budget and will find it almost impossible to bear the burden of the cut.