Without a doubt, the first area on which the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Government acted in the last five years – hopefully in the next five – was child benefit. The universal payment made directly to families, in most cases to mothers, is the single most effective payment in recognising the contribution women make to the home and parenthood. It also represents a major move towards achieving the goal of ending child poverty. There is nothing worse than seeing our children go hungry or cold, or without money to engage in school or social activities.

Child benefit will never be enough. No Government could ever give enough money to enable mothers to do all that they might want for their children, but the increases in 2002 bring the investment in child benefit to €1.44 billion, three times the 1997 figure. We saw an increase in the two child benefit rate of over €79 and €98 respectively in recent years. Such a level of increase is record breaking and I appeal to the Minister, whom I hope we all support in her negotiations with the Department of Finance, to ensure the final third increase, as initiated by her predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is paid in the forthcoming budget. I also plead with her to stand her ground and ensure there is no taxation of this payment which goes to the heart of the family and has benefited both women and their families for years. Any derogation in its effectiveness is not something over which we could stand. I strongly believe we could not contemplate either a reduction in the expected increases or taxation of these payments.

I realise that we do not have much time, but I must mention one area where there were difficulties with the old Department, that is, communication and customer care. There have been significant improvements in how members of the public are dealt with. We have seen automated leaflet and application requests on line which recognises that 60% of the over 4 million telephone calls received by the Department are requests for leaflets or application forms. There are also lo-call telephone numbers for the maternity benefits section and the publication by Comhairle of the Department's document on the recent entitlements for the over 60s. I compliment the Minister on this wonderful publication which is clear and makes it easy to find what is available as well as outlining the means tests and payments.

I preface all my remarks by recognising that while many things have been done, not everything that could be done is done, in particular in relation to carers. The Government, like its predecessor, has long been committed to continuing to develop the services which recognise the caring ethos in this country and the practical assistance for those who devote their time to improving the quality of life of others, that is, carers of older people, those with a disability and in any circumstance where someone gives up time to provide care. This is also an area where women tend to predominate. It is often an older woman looking after a middle aged child with a disability at home, which relieves the burden on the residential care sector. We have made a significant impact in this area.

The annual respite grant of €635 with a double payment where the carer looks after more than one person is to be welcomed. The carers of children who receive domiciliary care allowance are now eligible to apply for carer's allowance. This makes a significant difference to those women at home looking after children with a disability as it means that they have additional money because often domiciliary care allowance goes directly to support the child to improve his or her quality of life. All carers who receive carer's allowance are now entitled to the free schemes, such as travel, which is a huge benefit. The income disregards have also been significantly increased, both for individuals and couples.

Members of the Opposition will say we should get rid of the means test, but the figures on the cost of abolishing it show that it is better to keep it while increasing the income disregards instead of giving carer's allowance to everyone whether they need it. The numbers receiving carer's allowance and benefit have more than doubled from 9,700 to over 19,000 in recent years while expenditure increased by 180%.

There has been an almost 50% increase in old age pensions in five years and a commitment to see the basic pension increase to at least €200 by 2007. It was raised to €127 by 2002. All old age pensioners recognise that this represents an increase of 24% above the rate of inflation, in addition to the increases and additional services that the over 70s receive, regardless of means tests, such as the medical card and other free schemes.

We can see some improvement in regard to communications to widows who, under the stress of having lost a loved one who was perhaps the breadwinner, often do not have the confidence to approach the Department for information. It is important to provide a leaflet designed for widows or those who have been bereaved. The needs of younger widows and widowers have not been forgotten by the Department. A special widowed parent grant has been enhanced to €2,500 to help bereaved families at this difficult time. This is a recognition of the work that has been done in this area.

I have a final request to make to the Minister in regard to free travel. A person of 65 years of age who has free travel can get a companion pass for a spouse. A person with a free pass because of disability is also entitled to a companion pass. However, a widow or widower cannot get a companion pass because he or she has not got a spouse. I ask the Minister to look at the extension of free travel so that widows or widowers can apply for a companion pass so that they will have the opportunity to take someone with them when travelling. As they get older they need a companion to give them the confidence to get out and avail of the free travel. This is something that would not cost a huge amount and should be kept in mind for the budget.

Nowadays if people come to an advice centre it is easy to make contact with the Department through a direct phone connection and we can get information for them. The booklets produced by the Department are excellent and the information provided is helpful. It is much easier now for a public representative to provide information to those who require it.

Some of the achievements of the past few years reveal startling statistics. If the economic climate allowed this to continue the improvements would be dramatic. For example, in the area of pensions a couple, both over 66 years of age, get 54% more than five years ago. That is staggering. A special widowed parent grant to help bereaved parents with financial costs has been enhanced to €2,500. The personal rate of payment for most recipients of social welfare has increased by at least 37%, while the corresponding rate for a couple has increased by over 44%.

One of the simple things that makes a difference to the lives of people on social welfare payments is the Christmas bonus. The bonus paid out is now 100% and 792,000 recipients and an estimated 413 dependants will benefit from that. Old age, retirement, invalidity, one-parent family payments and employment support payments are areas which benefit from this bonus. Certain participants in FÁS and VTOS will also benefit.

The ESRI recently reported that consistent poverty in Ireland has been reduced by two thirds between 1994 and 2000. It fell 15.1% in 1994, 18.2% in 1998 and 6.2% in 2000. These are facts. I congratulate the Minister and wish her well. I am sure she will continue the excellent record of this and previous Governments in this area.

People are living in poverty if their income and resources (material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living that is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally. As a result of inadequate income and resources people may be excluded and marginalised from participating in activities that are considered the norm for other people in society.

Thousands of people throughout the country fit that description.

Despite a period of unprecedented prosperity, the scale of poverty has not been tackled effectively. Social welfare rates have not kept pace with improving standards of living and the gap between rich and poor has widened dramatically. This is a major scandal and a sad reflection on Government priorities in recent years.

The extent of poverty in Ireland has been highlighted by the United Nations human development report of 2001. Of 17 industrialised countries, Ireland ranked 16th in the poverty index. Only the United States of America had a higher percentage of its population living in poverty. All the major countries in Europe did better than Ireland where poverty was concerned.

There is no doubt that Ireland has become a much more prosperous place. However, the distribution of that prosperity has been such that the Celtic tiger dividend has been non-existent for a large number of citizens.

Last Monday I visited one of the most disadvantaged areas in Waterford city which is in my electoral area and where the rate of unemployment is more than 40%. Three years ago, there were 20 community employment workers in the area dealing with child care, youth work, the long-term unemployed and other areas of community development. This year, despite protestations from everyone involved, their allocation is ten community employment workers.

The services have had to be cut back drastically and that deprived community is suffering as a result. The services to the unemployed, such as preparing CVs, advice on interviews, job applications and so on, have been cut back to two days a week. Youth services especially are curtailed when they should be expanding. This is the type of commitment to disadvantaged communities over which the Government presides and we are being asked to allow for more of the same by supporting this Fianna Fáil motion.

Urgent action is required to tackle the social crisis which stems from the continued marginalisation of people with a disability. There should be no barriers to inclusion and it is a political and moral duty of the State to enable and encourage in every way possible independent living for everyone with a disability. At a minimum, the State should recognise the additional financial cost of a disability. A glaring injustice is where a carer is precluded from availing of the carer's allowance if he or she receives another State benefit. It beggars belief that the mother caring for her child with a disability is not entitled to the carer's allowance if she becomes a widow and receives a widow's pension.

The Government must acknowledge the harsh truth that people with disabilities and their families continue to experience high levels of poverty and social exclusion, a fact which has been verified by the Economic and Social Research Institute. We are told the Government must prioritise in the area of social inclusion and every other area because of the deteriorating state of the public finances. Why could it not have provided for and discriminated positively in favour of the disadvantaged when we had a budget surplus of more than €5 billion last year?

The previous Government failed miserably to address the many areas I have mentioned. The current Government has a chance to redress the balance. It said it is committed to tackling poverty and disadvantage. By its deeds we will judge it, not its promises.

The same can be said about home help. In addition, the remuneration they receive for the magnificent work they do is a scandal. That must be seen in the context of the amount of money they save the Government. Senator Wilson is laughing but in his heart he agrees with me because he has similar difficulties in his family.

I am not an expert on social welfare policy, but I regard it as an important priority policy, perhaps the highest political priority of the next budget. Even in the last budget the social welfare package was considerably more than the tax package. That will certainly, definitely and indisputably be the case this time around. Undoubtedly, many things need to be done and although we are very proud of our record, I do not have a quarrel with the second part of the Fine Gael amendment which calls on the Government to discriminate positively in favour of the poor, disadvantaged and those on low incomes in the forthcoming budget. I am sure that is what the Minister will do with support from the Taoiseach and her other Government colleagues.

There is a very good record of improvement but there are also big problems. There were the free schemes in the 1960s, which were very imaginative and much credit is due to Charles Haughey when he was a Minister. There was a big improvement in the rates when we joined the EU, both under Frank Cluskey as Minister and again under Charles Haughey in the late 1970s. There were fantastic 25% increases in old age pensions in 1980, 1981 and 1982. In 1987 when the economic situation was dire, one decision made was that there would be no cutbacks in social welfare and the Government implemented the commission on social welfare report, which the previous Fine Gael and Labour coalition had said would cost too much.

On the doorsteps at the recent general election, there was a very positive response both to the fantastic increases in old age pensions and in child benefit. However, we should not be under any illusion that it is easy to live on a social welfare income and people should be given encouragement to make additional provision for themselves where they are able. In discussions at Government the Minister should stress the importance of protecting the pension fund. I do not want to see a debate develop here over the next ten or 20 years asking if we can afford our old people. Making provision now will make it less controversial in the future.

There is a certain analytical poverty in the way we discuss some of these issues. The model we keep hearing about focuses on the rich and the poor. There are rich people and there are certainly many poor people. However, the vast majority of people are in between and the rhetoric about rich and poor leaves that out of account. When an economy is growing fast there is a tendency for gaps to widen somewhat and that should be corrected as much as possible. I am very glad there is a Government commitment to get rid of absolute or consistent poverty. However, given a choice, it would be preferable for people to be absolutely better off, even though relatively poorer, than to be relatively better off and absolutely less well off. Sometimes people talk as if that is not really the case. I know Fr. Healy very well and while people like him are very well intentioned, some of the economics are very faulty. There is no point in implementing old-fashioned socialist economics, which only have the effect of reducing the resources available for everything, including caring.

If I were to make one plea to the Minister, it would be to pay special attention to the humane spirit of decision-making on social welfare issues. This is both humane in terms of individual cases and also in terms of trying to iron out the anomalies that create unfairness and injustice. That is very important.

There is a constant problem when social welfare payments are increased at a budget. The next day people get a note through the door advising that the differential rent is being increased at the same time. Even though a different authority is involved, there is too much giving with one hand and taking back with the other.

It is true to say the Celtic tiger did not reach all places, but it largely eliminated unemployment, which everybody agreed ten or 15 years ago was the key cause of poverty. I support the Minister and the Government and if the forthcoming budget is not to be distinguished for changes in taxation, it should nonetheless be distinguished by an enlightened social welfare package.

The Minister for Finance seems to have a terrible problem, though I do not know how it arose between May and now. Apparently there is a great shortage of money that was not evident before the general election in May. Now there are startling revelations and though they are not this Minister's fault she will have to bear with them as the Minister for Finance will have to do something to balance the budget. We have said tonight she has a dissatisfied group and she will have a dissatisfied group in the Seanad if some of what we ask for does not come to pass.

All strategies should be considered as to how they affect children, no matter what Department they come from. That is often tagged on at the end but if it is a priority then there is a really good start to the strategy. The Minister's plans five or six years ago gave a commitment to great increases in child benefit and there have been great increases, though there could be more. He made a commitment to bring child benefit to €31.60 per month and €38.10 per month at the higher end. Those were very good increases but if they were part of the expectations of poorer families it would be a good idea for them to get those increases now. Child dependency allowances should also be increased to a weekly rate of €25 per child.

Support for children by way of actual money is terribly important. Unfortunately we have not been doing anything about child care and many people working outside the home must spend some of this money paying up front for child care, so getting hard cash is terribly important. I urge the Minister to encourage the Minister for Finance to do this. We could integrate the family income supplement into the tax system and perhaps examine the introduction of a refundable child tax credit. The children's allowance people will have been on to the Minister with all these suggestions and I hope they have contacted other Senators also. Some of the suggestions could be implemented in the current budget.

Naturally I looked at child health care very carefully and the medical card situation is very bad. Our statistics are extremely odd regarding the number of medical cards actually available to the population – it is probably less than 30% of the population now; though the figures say 33% it is probably much less. The Minister may remember that last year when the Minister for Health and Children brought in eligibility for medical cards for the over 70s another third of people had to be added on – those who were not expected to be on the register at all. Colleagues in primary care tell me that less than 30% of the population are actually eligible, which affects children first and foremost. We have talked and talked about extending the eligibility of children and perhaps that could be done now – it is certainly one of the most important things in the health sector.

We are trying to do something about waiting lists for children and I hope that commitment is honoured. We also need to put a great deal of money into those initiatives that particularly affect children, initiatives dealing with drug dependency and, sadly, with alcohol dependency as well as substance abuse. We heard again today about the sad death of a 15 year old due to substance abuse. How much are we doing about these cases? This requires resources because it is not so much the treatment of the child when it happens as a matter of acting in the education system to do something about it.

It is also important to improve the community services which could prevent drug and alcohol addiction. There are too many people in urban areas in particular who have been trying for years to get resources for initiatives that would help communities and families but they have not been able to get them. Perhaps the Minister could urge that some funding be provided for them.

Children with disabilities form another important group and the domiciliary care allowance is not great – it does not come near to covering the cost of caring for a person. I regret the building of the children's prison; if money was put into the Minister's Department and community care there would be far less need for it.

We are also desperately short of child psychologists in many areas where they would be helpful – the Minister's Department, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science. I urge the Minister for Health and Children to reverse the decision to cancel the courses in clinical psychology in both Trinity College and University College Dublin. Because of that cancellation we will not be producing one new clinical psychologist before 2005 and we are short 50% of our requirement now. Trying to recruit from abroad has not proved satisfactory.

I wish the Minister well in what she is trying to do. She should go in and really fight.

The NAPS seeks to provide for a consistent and coherent approach to Government policy across a range of policy measure and programmes to tackle the underlying causes of poverty and social exclusion in society. It does this by the development and implementation of programmes and policies which sustain economic growth and employment. It aims to provide levels of income support for those relying on social welfare sufficient to sustain dignity and avoid poverty while facilitating participation in employment and escape from welfare dependency. It seeks to provide high quality public services for all and address the needs of groups at high risk of poverty with specific needs.

The NAPS aims to tackle the causes of inter-generational transmission of poverty and support disadvantaged communities. It does this by identifying key targets in a number of areas that go to the heart of the underlying problems. As a global target, it uses the measure of consistent poverty developed by the ESRI from its expertise in the analysis of incomes and poverty to measure the progress made in addressing the issue of poverty in Ireland. The measure of consistent poverty uses income thresholds combined with deprivation indicators to measure the number of people or households in poverty. Recent years have seen significant reductions in the level of consistent poverty in Ireland, due, inter alia, to increases in employment and reductions in unemployment. This is what the Senator referred to in his analysis. At the end of the day, however, it is only an academic discussion. In 1994 the level of consistent poverty was 15.1% which was more than halved to 6% in 2000, the latest year for which figures are available.

The policies pursued by the Government in recent years in combating unemployment and reducing the level of consistent poverty have brought about a significant improvement in the situation of those on lower incomes. The NAPS strategy has ambitious targets across a number of areas which will further the Government's goal of creating a society where everyone has the opportunity and incentive to participate fully in the social and economic life of the country. In particular, it has a new target to reduce the numbers consistently poor to below 2% and, if possible, eliminate consistent poverty.

One of the key issues underlying the development of the NAPS strategy is the adequacy of social welfare rates, attention to which has been central to the development of social welfare policy in recent years, to which the previous Government committed considerable resources. Let me give just two examples. In 1997 the lower rate of child benefit was just over €38 per month. By 2002 it had been increased to €117.60 – an increase of over 200%. In 1997 old age contributory pension was only €99 per week. After budget 2002, it stood at €147.30 – an increase of almost 50% – well ahead of inflation and increases in average earnings.

The Government will seek to build on this progress and has made a range of commitments in relation to social welfare payments in our programme for Government. These include increasing the basic State pension to at least €200 by 2007, achieving a rate of €150 per week in 2002 terms for the lowest rates of social welfare to be met by 2007, and completing the announced programme of multi-annual increases in child benefit.

As the Taoiseach said recently at the launch of the talks on a new social partnership agreement, the Government programme sets out an agenda for all strategic areas of Government activity aimed at building a fair society of equality and opportunity and sustained prosperity for all. Through these commitments, the Government will seek to build upon the improvements in recent years and the progress made in the reduction of consistent poverty.

I will now speak about the issue of partnership and the series of national agreements which have made such a large contribution to the development of policy in relation to social welfare and economic and social development generally. Partnership has been key to this approach, not only in ensuring the development of policies, but also in their effective implementation. The inclusive approach has brought together the main actors in the economy and society with a view to coming to a common understanding about our problems and addressing them in a coherent and consistent manner.

In recent years the Government has more than fulfilled its commitments on social inclusion made under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. Significant progress has been made toward the core objective of bringing about a fairer and inclusive society. I know that the negotiations which have just started in relation to a successor agreement will raise a considerable number of difficult issues. However, I am confident that the spirit of partnership will allow these to be addressed in a spirit of mutual co-operation and in the belief that the gains at national level of the period since partnership began can once again be secured.

There is no doubt that the circumstances around which the forthcoming budget will be drawn up are significantly less promising that those of earlier years. However, the Government has committed itself to ensure social progress continues to be made side by side with economic progress. In the context of the difficult decisions that will have to be made, my parliamentary party and I will certainly ensure those most vulnerable in society will not be the ones to bear it. We have outlined commitments and priorities with regard to widows, the household budget package and in the context of carers. I am very much aware that carers and carer's allowance and benefit are issues which all Senators deal with in their clinics. The figures show the huge number of new persons now contributing as carers because of the introduction of the new scheme of carer's benefit. Increased numbers are participating in the carer's allowance scheme as a consequence of the disregard. I know that in a perfect society it would be fantastic to be able to stand up and say I could abandon the means test for carer's allowance. I cannot do so at present, but will support carers in society. I agree that there is no argument when one compares the cost of institutional care against that of a carer.

I have not been long in the Department but the 4,500 who work in it are caring and considerate and more than helpful. I appreciate that little blips often appear in the system, but they can be dealt with at a local level. I support all those civil servants who provide information and support networks for those in difficulty and who have been more than flexible in the context of particular and personal difficulties. I hope there will be an enlightened social welfare package and the Minister for Finance is listening to this debate. We have achieved much in the context of social welfare packages. The supports now provided cannot be judged in monetary terms. The Department has expanded its role in the support of the less well-off and the most vulnerable.

I hope I will have the opportunity during my tenure to look at expanding the role of the family side of my Department along with the family support unit. The targeting of resources, the elimination of child poverty and supporting the less well off will be the hallmark of this Government over the next five years.

Guím gach rath ar Sheanadóirí ocáid a thabhairt dom a chur in iúl caidé tá déanta ag an Rialtas cheana agus caidé tá le déanamh. Gabhaim buíochas leo siúd a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht.

I always listen to what is being said. Like the Senator, I can hear three conversations at the same time and can jump into any one of them. I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter and to hear the priorities of this House in the context of social welfare and the elimination of poverty. Regardless of what political side we are on, everyone in their heart of hearts believes the elimination of poverty should be a goal in any just society.

Performance in any area, particularly in an area where change is taking place, can only be measured against the potential and not against some fixed reference. For instance, if the Leas-Chathaoirleach or I ran in a marathon, we would not measure our performance against that of a professional athlete because we would not be starting from the same position. When one adjudicates on or looks at the performance of the previous Government and the philosophy which underpins the present Government, one does not look at it in terms of numbers but in terms of what was possible. In terms of what was possible, little was done. I do not deny that there was a spectacular change in child benefit but let us remember that was not driven by a passion to eliminate poverty but by the need to facilitate the expansion of the labour force in times when there was a constraint on it and because IBEC and others wanted large-scale improvements in child benefit. We would be still waiting for those changes if they were not driven by the scandal of the fact we have the worst child care provision in western Europe.

In the last budget, according to the Combat Poverty Agency, 60% of the cash transfers between tax and social welfare went to the top 30% of income earners. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to discover that relative income poverty, the proportion of our population who have incomes below 60% of the average income, has not changed significantly in spite of the fact we have gone from being perhaps the eighteenth richest country in the world to perhaps the second or third richest. If one comes from the technocratic school of economics, then that does not matter. One may well have a flicker of a tear in the corner of one's eye for the 3% who must buy second-hand clothes but one does not really care about inequality.

Let us remember what inequality means. Inequality means that one cannot afford to pay for a proper health service and one must depend on the State health service. What the State has decreed is that if one is single and has an income in excess of €122 per week, one is deemed to be rich enough to be able to pay for one's own health care. Somebody on €123 per week is deemed to be able to afford to pay €65 per month for prescription medicine. They do not have to buy second-hand clothes nor do they fall into the other indicators of consistent poverty, and I am glad for their sake that they do not. However, a society which decides that a single person on €125 per week can afford to pay €65 per month for prescription medicine and €40 or €50 every time they visit an out-patient department in a hospital may well be doing something about consistent poverty but it is doing nothing about inequality in society.

The trouble is that while the increases in welfare payments were welcome, the previous Government was inept in a host of other areas. It spent a fortune on the health services and after spending the money, it produced a strategy. Most reasonable people would have done the reverse. Most people on average incomes have given up on the dream of owning a house. Local authority housing is unavailable to most people unless they are waiting for two years. Those factors mean that the otherwise welcome increases in the income of the poorest will make no contribution to eliminating inequality and injustice in our society because this Government, like the previous one, does not understand the difference between inequality and poverty. We can eliminate consistent poverty – I hope we will do so – but if we continue to put together a society which is the most profoundly unequal in the western world with the exception of the United States, we will never be able to produce the sort of housing that will get our people out of poverty. We will never be able to produce the quality of life that our people expect. While social welfare increases are to be welcomed, this motion represents such a limited vision of the future, of equality and of what poverty should really be about that it is not worthy of support.

For the future, Fianna Fáil pledges to raise the old age pension to €200 per week. We will also introduce a homemaker's pension for pensioner spouses currently in receipt of the qualified adult allowance, set at the level of a full non-contributory pension. People in receipt of old age pensions are very appreciative and conscious of the major improvement in the rates of payment over recent years. The Fianna Fáil Party made a decision in 1997 that on election to office a special effort would be made to improve the lot of our pensioners.

There have been major improvements in the rates of payments and the free schemes have been improved and extended. The eligibility criteria to avail of these schemes have been improved and this has enabled the numbers availing of these schemes to increase considerably.

We are all conscious of the importance of the carer's allowance scheme, which has been mentioned by most speakers. This scheme has enabled thousands of people to be cared for at home who would otherwise have to be hospitalised or cared for in nursing homes. The conditions to avail of the carer's allowance scheme have been eased in recent years, but I am sure the Minister for Social and Family Affairs will agree that further improvements are necessary. We all know of applications that narrowly fail to meet all the criteria, and I hope that the Minister, during her term of office, will be able to improve further the income limits and rates of payment and further relax the residency requirements.

I wish to refer to community employment schemes, a matter not within the remit of the Minister's Department. Community employment schemes were an idea set up through FÁS to bring people off the live register, to train them in different skills and to give them confidence in re-entering the market. The last Government contributed towards these schemes when it had the money and the supervisors were dotted around the country.

People who came off the live register joined the schemes, gained the confidence and learnt the skills, and the vast majority of these people are employed today. However, the Minister, Deputy Mary Coughlan, is now faced with the problem that there was no thought or foresight put into how to sustain community employment schemes. I have a meeting with supervisors in Donegal next week to discuss cut-backs in these schemes. It is acceptable to talk about what was done but the sustainability of these schemes has not been addressed. Supervisors who have mortgages no longer have jobs. People on the live register – and the number is increasing – will not now have the opportunity for training on smaller schemes. This crucial issue was not considered during the economic boom of the last four or five years.

Every housing estate, local authority owned or otherwise, in urban areas had a vibrant, hard working voluntary sector which helped communities by taking underage football, helping pensioners and so on. These committees and voluntary groups existed before the boom and were an asset to the country. However, as a result of the boom we have problems with our voluntary sector because during the previous Government's term in office jobs were given to the paid sector – to youth workers and co-ordinators of community development projects. These were great jobs, some of them worth €40,000 or €50,000 a year but the paid workers went into the communities and the voluntary sector began to fall apart. Volunteers questioned why they should work for nothing when others were being paid. No thinking went into the sustainability of voluntary communities in urban estates. When cutbacks begin, the first people to lose their jobs will be the paid workers in these estates so we will have not only lost the voluntary sector but the paid sector too. This is due to the lack of foresight in relation to sustainability.

Anyone who studies the basics of economics knows that it is about booms and troughs rather than what party is in power – be it Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats happened to be in Government when pensions were increased. This is hardly surprising given the economic boom. Of course Fine Gael was not in a position to hand out as much as the last Government because when that party was in Government we were in a trough. We need to be honest as political parties and stop attacking one another about the events of 15 years ago or two months ago. We need to get to grips with the realities of economics, to talk about social inclusion in holistic terms and work with all Departments in harmony – Education and Science, Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs – to examine how we can make a sustainably more equal society and look to the long term rather than to this election or the next.

I thank the Minster of State for coming to the House to listen and if there is anything we, on this side of the House, can offer in terms of advice or contribution, we will be more than willing.

One of the reasons the Government has been able to do all this is that it has not cut back on the amount of money that is being spent on social welfare. Rather, it has consistently increased it in a global context because it has managed the economy so well. We were able to divert huge amounts of money away from unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. I cannot understand what some commentators have been writing in recent days with regard to the economy – some of it bordering on hysteria. One would think we were in the depths of despair and that the entire country was about to collapse around us. That is not the case. Tax revenue is not as plentiful as anticipated – perhaps due to the success of some of the schemes that were put in place or miscalculations – but that is not to say that the economy is not fundamentally strong. I disagree with Senator McHugh's point that unemployment was on an upward spiral. Perhaps he did not see the figures that were released earlier this week which showed that the number on the live register has actually gone down.

I agree with the Minister that there is a case to be made for abolishing the means test because it does not make economic sense and puts pressure on geriatric hospitals. If we got the proper supports, we could look after our elderly relatives at home. The Minister agrees with this. I hope we can support her in that regard. Perhaps then it will get through to the powers that be to bring about the necessary change.

I ask the Minister to consider a number of priorities in advance of her final preparations for the budget. First, on the issue of carer's allowance, Senator Kenneally is right. Four years ago 9,000 people were receiving the allowance. That figure is now 22,000, but the problem, according to the Carers Association and the health boards, is that 110,000 are eligible for the allowance. As Senator Kenneally rightly said, we need to abolish the means test. I encourage the Minister, who is a very fair-minded person, to make this a key policy priority for carers because she will not be able to do everything over the next four years as the budgetary situation deteriorates.

Second, one of the ways we can help people's nutritional health in disadvantaged communities, some of which are in my own constituency as well as my former constituency, is through the free meals scheme. Other European Union countries have managed to put in place excellent schemes to ensure children get at least one square meal a day. The reports of the Combat Poverty Agency and various religious orders here in Dublin and other cities highlight the fact that children in some disadvantaged communities are not getting the basic nutritional value from their food. A Government sponsored free meals scheme, which needs to be amended at this stage, would help to reduce poverty in absolute terms.

A particular bugbear of mine is the issue of heat. A total of 50,000 local authority homes do not have central heating.

I support what other speakers said in relation to carers. The Minister said she cannot abandon the means test but, as Senator Kenneally said, it does not make economic sense. Carers provide a magnificent service. The Minister should look at this issue immediately. At a time when every hospital bed throughout the country is occupied, the facility of caring for people in their own homes should be utilised.

An excellent service is also provided by MABS centres of which, I believe, there are 52 in total, including one in Ballina and one in Castlebar. I have been approached recently about the need for a third such centre in County Mayo to complete the coverage of this large county. There is a great need for that service because of the large number of very poor people who find it difficult to manage their limited household budgets. The demand for an additional centre is indicative of the fact that the existing centres are overworked. Undoubtedly, the experience in this regard in County Mayo is similar to that in other counties.

Senator Ryan referred to housing. An increasing number of people are finding it impossible to provide housing for themselves without assistance. I urge the Minister to contact the Minister for the Environment and Local Government immediately in relation to the housing strategies which had been put in place by local authorities, acting on the advice of the previous Minister in that Department. Clearly, those strategies are not working. Fewer houses are being built, not alone in the local authority sector but also in the private sector. Coming in the immediate aftermath of an economic boom, that is disastrous. Builders and developers have no hesitation in attributing blame to the strategies which local authorities have implemented on the advice of the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I again ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to contact the present Minister for the Environment and Local Government with a view to having this issue addressed. If that is not done, the situation will escalate and the Minister will be inundated with requests in relation to housing problems.

The motion before the House relates to what has been done over the last five years. It is not always easy to identify specific achievements of individual Ministers during their terms of office. However, going back quite a number of years, I recall the work of a former Minister for Lands, the late Joe Blowick, in laying the foundations for forestry development. A former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, introduced free transport for pensioners. A former Minister for Education, the late Donogh O'Malley, introduced free education. In the rainbow Government of recent years, the then Minister for Social Welfare, the former Deputy De Rossa, changed the pensions structure with particular reference to partial pensions. That was a major benefit for people who did not have the full requirement in contributions over their working lifetimes and were enabled to qualify for a partial pension. The former Ministers whom I have mentioned made a significant contribution to the poorer sections of society and they deserve recognition for that.

When I listened to Senator McHugh I started to think that the booms and troughs had a life of their own and there was no point in having a Government because everything was decided by the current boom or trough —

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Senators Bannon and Cummins; Níl, Senators Minihan and Moylan.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and declared carried.