Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The objectives of the social welfare package are to increase or maintain the value of all rates of payment in real terms, to give additional increases to those aged 66 and over, in particular those on widow's and old age pension, to continue to increase pensions in line with the programme for Government commitment to increase the State pension to €200 by 2007, to increase or maintain the real value of all qualified adult rates of payment and to ensure that they do not fall as a proportion of the associated personal rate and to make significant progress in our programme of increases in the level of child benefit.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill provide for an increase of €10 in the personal rates of old age, retirement and invalidity pensions,over age 65, per week. This will bring the rate of old age contributory pension to €157.30 per week and the old age non-contributory pension to €144 per week. This confirms our commitment to pensioners and marks a substantial first step in implementing our intention, announced in the programme for Government, to increase the State pension to €200 per week. In overall terms, it represents an increase of about 59 per cent over the rate payable in 1997, well ahead of the increase in inflation.

In 2000 we gave a commitment to increase the widow's and widower's contributory pension for those over 66 to the full old age contributory pension. I am pleased to say that the special increase of €11 for this category, provided in section 2 of the Bill, will bring the new rate to €155.80, within €1.50 of the full old age contributory rate.

The Government is also conscious of the needs of other vulnerable groups in society, particularly those who fulfil a caring role, widows, widowers and those on invalidity pension. We are providing for an increase of €7 in the personal rates of those payments. This will bring the standard personal rates of invalidity and widow's pensions to €130.30 for a pensioner under age 65 and the rate of carer's allowance for a carer aged under 66 to €129.60 per week.

We are also committed to protecting the real value of other social welfare payments. Over the period from 1997 general social welfare increases have increased well ahead of inflation and average earnings. In this budget, we are maintaining the value of these payments in line with inflation by providing an increase of €6 per week in the personal weekly rate of disability and unemployment payments, one parent family payment, supplementary welfare allowance and farm assist.

We are also providing for further increases of €7.70 per week for contributory pensioners, qualified adults aged 66 and over, with proportionate amounts for those on reduced payments. A pensioner couple on a full social welfare payment will therefore get an increase of €17.70 per week. The qualified adult allowance for a person over 66 has risen from 72% of the old age contributory pension in 1997 to 77% in 2003 and now represents 84% of the old age non-contributory pension. As promised in the programme for Government this will be increased in the coming years to the full old age non-contributory pension rate to benefit women in the home who do not qualify in their own right for the contributory pension.

Other qualified adult allowances are being maintained in line with increases in the relevant personal rates. The increases in these allowances are as follows: €6.70 per week for old age non-contributory pensions where the qualified adult is aged under or over 66 and for contributory pensions where he is aged under 66; €5 per week for invalidity pension where the qualified adult is under 66 and €4 per week for all other qualified adult payments. Proportionate increases will be applied where persons are in receipt of reduced rate QAA payments.

Now that the tax year has moved to the start of January, the budget increases will again become payable from the first pay-day in January. People receiving short-term payments such as unemployment payments will receive their increases immediately in the first week in January. In the case of certain people on long-term payments such as pensions, because of the time needed to print and distribute pension books, pensioners will receive their increases in arrears somewhat later. However, those who receive long-term payment by means of electronic payment through a post office or bank will, this year, receive their increases on the first pay-day in January.

Some 235,000 people, mainly widows, widowers, one-parent families, invalidity pensioners and persons receiving carer's allowance, will receive a lump sum arrears payment for six weeks of the budget increases in mid February. This will be included in their new order books effective from that date. For example, a widow on a contributory pension over 66 years of age will receive a backdated payment of €66. A further 262,000 recipients, mainly old age and retirement pensioners and disability allowance recipients who are due to get their new order books in April, will receive a special payment in mid-February comprising six weeks arrears of the budget increase and seven weeks' advance payment. For example, a pensioner couple over age 66 will receive a lump sum payment of €260 in mid-February.

Section 4 of the Bill increases the weekly income thresholds for family income supplement from January next by €17 per week. This will lead to a net gain of €10.20 per week in the average FIS family payment. These increased payments for all FIS recipients will be paid immediately in the first week in January.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill provide for an increase in the earnings ceiling from €38,740 to €40,420 per year for employees' social insurance (PRSI) contributions and in the income ceiling for payment of optional contributions. Section 6 of the Bill also provides for a restructuring of the rate of optional contributions payable by share fishermen The standard rate of contribution is being reduced from 5% to 4% and the minimum flat rate contribution is being reduced from €253 to €200 per annum. In addition, the PRSI free allowance is being increased from €1,321 to €2,500 per annum. These changes reflect reductions already made in recent years for most other PRSI contributors.

This Social Welfare Bill, the first of two instalments, builds on the progress made in the social inclusion area by this Government over recent years. It safeguards the living standards of those who rely on social welfare and prioritises the allocation of resources in favour of those most in need.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí uilig as éisteacht liom agus tá súil agam go mbeidh díospóireacht breá againn. I commend the Bill to Seanad Éireann and look forward to a constructive and useful debate from Senators.

The Combat Poverty Agency has a statutory role in advising the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on economic and social policy appertaining to poverty. Its theme was the prioritising of poverty at a time of economic uncertainty. How let down that agency must feel that its recommendations were not even mentioned in the budget. It recommended that the eligibility for medical cards be widened by increasing the income threshold, as promised in the Government health strategy. This recommendation was shot down by the Taoiseach before the budget even saw the light of day, another con trick on the electorate.

Another recommendation of the Combat Poverty Agency was that the Government honour its commitment in the 2001 budget to increase child benefit over three budgets to €150 per month. To achieve this rock solid commitment given in 2001 would have required an increase of €31.80 per month. What increase did the Government give? The increase was only €8 per month, rowing back on its previous budget commitments and election promises. This was an attack on women and children. Women's votes were targeted by this Government through this commitment. Paying the back money for child benefit the week before the election was another ploy. Many of these women feel tricked and angry, as they should, because of the increase.

CORI described the budget as unfair, unjust and unacceptable, insulting Ireland's poorest people once more. It also stated that budget 2003 marked a moment of truth for the Government in that it failed to address the substantial poverty and social exclusion which is persistent to this day. It has widened the gap between rich and poor, the widest gap in the EU. This is a telling commentary on the Government's policy on social and family affairs from a group that deals with so many disadvantaged and people on the margins of society.

A card player who reneges would lose the game. If he or she continued to renege, he or she would be thrown out of the casino. This Government has reneged on so many promises on a daily basis that it should be thrown out. We all know that will not happen as the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil will prop each other up for as long as it takes. Meanwhile, the increases of a few cent after inflation is all that people on social welfare can expect.

Additional free units of electricity for pensioners is an issue my party has raised on numerous occasions. To date, the Government has not listened. The question should be addressed in the future, especially in view of the increases in electricity charges.

The Christmas bonus is welcomed by all who receive it but why do those on unemployment assistance and social welfare benefit not receive it? These are people who have been proven to have few means. I know that choices had to be made in the budget, but this Social Welfare Bill again proves that the Government prefers to hit the people who have little clout rather than tax dodgers and others.

That a widow or widower cannot have a bus pass for somebody who is not their spouse needs to be looked at because it may restrict the benefit of the pass if people are not in a position to travel on their own. In the first years following a bereavement, widows and widowers who have been married for many years often do not have the confidence to go out on their own. That area could be looked at and, if it is not too costly, that benefit could be extended.

In our debate two weeks before the budget, there were calls from all sides of the House to increase the carer's allowance and to give that to everybody and not to—

Anybody who looks after a child or adult with a disability, or an old person, knows the true value of the respite care grant. Members may laugh and say that it is derisory but the grant makes a significant difference to people annually. When that cheque comes into homes, it is a recognition of the contribution that people are making and a token that allows people to take a weekend away, or to put the person being cared for into a respite home so that the carer can take a couple of days off. That makes a significant difference even if it happens just once a year and I commend the Minister for increasing the grant by €100 to €735 per annum. People caring for more than one person will receive €1,470 per annum and it will be paid in June 2003 to recipients of carer's allowance, carer's benefit and carers who are providing full-time care and attention to those in receipt of various disability payments.

The package, which sees an additional €833 million, brings spending to over €10 billion per annum in 2003; it sees increases of €10 per week for pensioners, €11 per week for widows and widowers aged 66 years and over, €8 and €10 increases in child benefit effective from April 2003 and a £7 increase for widows and widowers under 66.

Are we to assume that the Focus Ireland's figures on homelessness are a figment of somebody's imagination? They are very real. Within five minutes walk of this House there are young people sleeping in corridors. Homelessness is rampant in this city and other parts of the country. Within five minutes walk of the national Parliament, there are people lying in doorways at night with sleeping bags around them and containers beside them in the hope that people will contribute money. Many know the statistics but when one sees a young person thrown in the hallway of a building late at night it brings home the stark reality of homelessness more effectively than looking at reports or figures.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul does not exaggerate when it produces figures showing a significant increase in the assistance the society must give to low income families. The society states that it could spend twice what it does if it had the resources.

Over coming months, the Combat Poverty Agency's recent publication, Against All Odds, Family Life on Low Income, will hopefully be studied by all Members of the Houses, including the Ministers in this Administration. The report deals with the lives of those living on social welfare payments. This is not mere propaganda by the poverty lobby but important factual information that has been garnered by that agency. It shows that a significant number of people have not benefited or made any significant gains from the wealth created during the past six or seven years. The additional sum of €6 brings the lowest social welfare payment up to €124.80 per week but it falls short of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness commitment to bring the lowest social welfare rate to €127 during the lifetime of that programme.

We have heard various arguments with regard to inflation. Some people on low incomes face higher than average costs because of their low purchasing power and lack of private transport. These are important factors which must be taken into consideration. The rate of inflation means the miserable increases are not as good as they seem.

The increases for many social welfare recipients will be clawed back by changes in rent supplements, which have been rightly condemned by housing groups and community welfare officers. Despite that, the Government had the gall to claim that the budget protects the weaker sections of society. It took a lot of gall for someone who is known in this House as a right winger to say that the Government is on the left of the political spectrum, particularly when the Administration's policies mirror those of the Tories in the UK in the 1980s.

The increases given to people on social welfare are not good enough. They do not mirror the harsh economic reality faced by many people every day. Although it might surprise some people sitting on my right, the rate of inflation and the amount of indirect taxation people pay on a newspaper and a pint of milk are more than the social welfare increases.

I was surprised at the 12% increase in car tax in the budget. The television licence fee was also increased by €43. I support the State broadcaster. I will not moan or complain about such an increase because we must be realistic about it. We cannot have it both ways.

I am worried that some people do not place any value on community employment schemes. They are a great engine of community activism and they have provided some people with a role in society which has been properly remunerated. The community employment schemes have provided an essential service. They have helped clubs and voluntary organisations and assisted people to find work. I am worried that the schemes will be cut by 5,000 this year and by the same amount next year. We should not do that, particularly given that the country is not doing as well as it was three or four years ago. It would be better to retain those valuable schemes, particularly as the people who benefited from them might not find employment in other areas.

The Minister confirmed recently that the back to work allowance scheme has been abolished, except for target groups such as lone parents and people with disabilities. For those on the unemployment register, however, the period of time allowed to qualify for the back to work allowance scheme has been increased fourfold from 15 months to a staggering 60 months. That happened because the financial provision for employment support services was cut in the Book of Estimates. The back to work allowance scheme has been extremely successful and has benefited approximately 13,500 recipients. While a study of the scheme commissioned by the Department recommended a reduction in the number of places, it also recommended increased funds for better training and support for participants. The net effect of the Minister's announcement is that the scheme will be abolished. The scheme should have been developed and improved because it played a pivotal role in assisting people to make the transition from long-term unemployment back into the workforce.

The negative impact of the back to work allowance scheme had its genesis in the budget which contained a number of insidious cutbacks, the effects of which will only become apparent over time. Such negative impacts may only become apparent during the debate on the Finance Bill or whenever such issues are discussed. However, when the technicalities of the budgetary measures are spelt out, the seriousness of the overall impact becomes evident.

By any yardstick, the Minister stands indicted on the issue of social housing because local authority housing lists will continue to grow as a result of a reduction in the overall allocation of accommodation programmes. There are approximately 50,000 households, representing approximately 130,000 people, on local authority housing lists. Between 5,000 and 6,000 people are homeless. One homeless person is an indictment of all of us and it is one person too many. A significant number of people who were once in a position to buy their own homes have been priced out of the market. The Government announced a number of savage cutbacks in the housing sector in the Book of Estimates which was published on 21 November. We only have to look at the reports by Focus Ireland, the Simon Community, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Threshold which analyse the housing strategies and homeless plans drawn up by local authorities. One report concluded that 33% of new householders and 42% in urban areas will not become home owners.

We have the highest concentration of home ownership in the European Union. Many young people and couples aspire to owning their own homes as soon as they become established in their career or profession. It is worrying that 33% of householders will not become home owners. The fact that many people are unable to buy their own home during our greatest period of economic prosperity is a damning indictment of the Administration. It ensured that the elite and wealthy in the country prospered during the years of the Celtic tiger and that the young people and those who aspired to buy their own homes remained householders rather than home owners.

The reports also reinforce the demands being made by my political party. We want the Government to reverse the major cuts in housing, namely, the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant and the capping of the rent allowance. We debated the issue of the first-time buyer's grant at length in the House recently. Some people thought the grant of €3,800 was not much, but it was factored into the financial arrangements some people made to obtain a deposit and repay a mortgage. However, when the Minister for Finance, "Slasher" McCreevy, decided to axe the first-time buyer's grant, he not only affected the thousands of young people who had hoped to avail of the scheme, but also the people who had contractual arrangements.

There are anomalies in the system as one can see from the bloodstock industry. A young stallion can successfully cover 50 mares per annum and a stallion owner recently put a price of €300,000 on a successful cover. This person will never pay a cent in tax, which is a large anomaly. The revenue gained by the Government from the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant could not possibly be outweighed by the advantages to be gained by examining this area, where a massive amount of money is seeping through the system and not a cent of it returns to the State. If multi-millionaire horse owners were pursued by the Minister for Finance with more gusto, young people might be €3,000 better off when they buy their own homes.

The capping of the rent allowance, announced by the Minister who has graced the House with her presence today, contributes to an increase in the number of homeless people. Single people will be forced out of their homes because this cap provides landlords with an opportunity to increase rents. The speculative landlordism which is now prevalent is taking us back to the 18th century. It is unfortunate that young people bear the brunt of the gold grabbing speculation indulged in by some people.

Care providers give an invaluable service to the State and have done so under great financial, physical and emotional pressure. While I welcome the advances to which Senator Cox referred, we will never achieve the full potential of that scheme until we abolish the means test for the carer's allowance. Such a measure would have financial implications, but the country can afford to tell these people that the service they are providing is invaluable. The people they are looking after would otherwise have to be cared for by the State. Carers not only contribute to the care of individuals, they also free up the resources of the State. That is a positive dimension of this matter. The abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance should be implemented.

I look forward to contributing to the debate on the later Stages of the Bill.

In the past, significant structural changes have been made to the social welfare system. Many of these changes, while costing little in financial terms, have been of enormous benefit to those who are awaiting services. The majority of benefits and allowances are now increased in the January following the budget. Family income supplement customers will receive their increases in full from the beginning of January. Customers on short-term weekly payments, such as carers benefit and supplementary welfare allowance, will receive their increases in full from the first pay day in January and customers on long-term weekly payments, such as old age pensioners, widows and widowers, will also receive their increases from the same date.

Many payments are paid through the post or directly into bank accounts. The recent promotion by the Minister of the personal public services number will further streamline and enhance the delivery of these services across a wide range of areas and make life easier for many. These changes, coupled with the almost 80% increase in expenditure the Minister outlined, have contributed to the transformation of the social welfare system into a 21st century service. Having spent some years working in the employment exchanges in the city of Dublin, I have had direct experience of the queues stretching out on to the streets. We used to refer to the blue line in Cumberland Street. Phenomenal changes have taken place in a short period. It is essential that this momentum be maintained and the changes protected.

The Department and the Minister are spearheading the early introduction of schemes such as the early retirement savings account. A targeted awareness campaign is being constructed to encourage workers to provide supplementary pension provisions in the future.

The House recently discussed the provision of social housing. The Minister, again concentrating on the most vulnerable sections of our society, has increased the amounts of supplementary welfare allowance to €40 per single person and €45 in all other cases where voluntary housing bodies have to take means into account when assessing their rents. This small increase will encourage the provision of more social housing, particularly in the voluntary sector.

I understand the frustration of my colleagues on the Opposition benches when they see the changes and increases of recent times. They must wonder why they could not have increased the social welfare package by €530 million, or 40%.

The gap between rich and poor cannot be allowed to grow and recent statistics have shown that Ireland is the worst in the EU with regard to looking after the least well-off in society, despite boasting from time to time that we are the third or fourth wealthiest country in the world. The poor are expected the bear the burden of the Government's mismanagement of the resources which were available during the Celtic tiger years. The position now is that the Government has widened the gap between rich and poor by €266 per week, according to the CORI justice commission figures. That document, produced since the budget, is in the public domain. The minimal increases in social welfare are unfair and unjust. The Minister for Finance's claim that the budget was aimed at supporting the most vulnerable in society is blatantly false.

To sum up the view of the entire country I will quote the comment of an old age pensioner from Longford who, when asked what she thought of the budget replied, "I did not feel its benefits. As you know, it hit the poorest hardest." Perhaps in this festive season the Minister would consider the abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance and give something to the poor and those who care for the sick and elderly. It is a time of giving and perhaps the Minister will be generous.

I have been championing the case of carers in the Dáil for many years and now in the Seanad. Like many other public representatives I would welcome the abolition of the means test for carers and we are moving towards it. I note from the budget that the disregard is €210 for a single person and €420 for a married couple. Given the increase it is well worthwhile for people to apply for carer's allowance. In the past those who thought they would not qualify for the allowance put off making an application.

Social welfare officers are looking at the quality and type of care available. The relaxation in the conditions whereby the carer had to live in the same house as the person being cared for is a welcome development. Now carers can live just down the road and provide very good care. Carers are concerned about the amount of time they can get off. That issue has been addressed by various Governments.

There has been a major increase of €100 in the respite care grant and the disregards have been positive. It is the view of those I represent and professionals in the health board area that people like to be cared for at home. In certain parts of the country the number of private nursing homes has increased and obviously the subvention has been increased in those areas. When increased subvention is paid, frequently the cost of private nursing home care increases. This is an issue about which we have to be concerned. The Minister had the same problem in regard to the cost of rental income but has acted on that issue. It would make sense that the person caring for a person at home should get at least the same payment as the subvention paid in nursing homes. I hope that issue will be looked at.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has available to her a fund of €950,000 for medical appliances. This has been a matter of concern in the Western Health Board area for some time. It is a matter for the Department of Health and Children to provide aids and appliances such as wheelchairs, hoists and anything that can help those with a disability.

Important developments in recent years have been the back-to-education scheme and the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance, for which the Minister has increased the funding. I hope these will be seen as positive schemes because every year we hear about the need for funding for them. The threshold for family income supplement has been increased by €17 per week and I hope people avail of the scheme. Some people feel they are not entitled to it and do not make an application in time.

In regard to care of the elderly and for those with disability, will the Minister or the Department of Health and Children look at the issue of the location of private nursing homes? Few nursing homes are provided in a large area of north and west Galway and north Mayo. If we are to provide care for our elderly, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children must look at the provision of nursing homes.

Most health boards and communities have requested community nursing units for their area. The Western Health Board has sought several units. The private sector is the only way forward if these are not going to be built by the Department. The private sector, which goes where there is money to be made, seems reluctant to provide nursing homes in some areas and we end up with too many in the one area. I urge the Minister to look at that issue.

Despite the difficult economic situation and the circumstances of this budget, the Minister has managed to provide an increase for the disadvantaged. The Department could also play a useful role in getting people back on schemes or into education. The schemes favoured in rural Ireland are the community employment schemes. We would like to see people continue to qualify for those schemes. I am glad we have schemes up and running in County Galway despite cutbacks. Hopefully, they will continue.

The Minister has allocated €500,000 towards the cost of the rural transport initiative scheme. This scheme should be advertised more. Some of the transport schemes in Galway operate in the social services area providing bingo runs, social activities for the elderly, outings and visits. The scheme is a good one but I ask the Minister to advertise it more and to try to get more contractors involved in it as the numbers involved at the moment are low. As we have often said we could have all the free travel schemes in the world but if the transport is not there they cannot be used. This type of initiative is important and provides opportunities for elderly people and social services groups around the country.

I thank the Minister for coming in today. I support the proposals put forward in the legislation.

Senator Brady mentioned new methods of payment of social welfare such as through the post office or the bank. People will need credit or bank cards to avail of that service. The tax imposed on these cards in the budget is a form of poll tax. Everybody needs these cards to get by nowadays. The charges could amount to €60 per annum in a case where someone has four cards. Most people need at least two.

I ask the Minister to consider waiving tax in the case of social welfare and old age pension recipients. If those recipients have to draw down their payments through a bank or post office using a credit card, any increase the Minister has provided will be offset by the increased cost of the card.

I welcome the increases announced in the budget, to which this Bill gives effect. However, the increases are badly needed when offset by the increased impositions which have been applied before, in and since the budget.

The increase in social welfare spending is a real achievement in a context where unemployment – perhaps the principal source of that expenditure – has dropped from approximately 10% in 1997 to approximately 4.5% today. There is a possibility that it may rise to 5% in the coming year. This indicates that, as Members would desire, the extra resources have gone into real improvements. An increase of €10 in pensions clearly shows that we are on target to fulfil party pre-election and Government commitments towards a rate of €200. According to my rough calculations, we are also on target for a general benchmark of €150 for unemployment assistance.

The budget was poverty-proofed. Distributive effects were probably stronger towards the lower end of the scale than in any recent budget. I have a great deal of respect for the values of Fr. Seán Healy and those who work with him. However, I sometimes feel they do not adequately acknowledge the progress and achievements that have been made. On one occasion when Fr. Healy was castigating a budget introduced by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, I asked him to specify any budget of which he had approved within the previous ten years. He replied that he would require notice of that question.

The Minister, with the Minister for Finance, is making an important provision in putting aside money for future pensions when our national demographics become less favourable. Earlier in my career, when I was posted to Germany, there was already considerable concern about the sustainability of the pensions system in that country. We are rendering a great service for the next generation.

There have been major improvements in the rates of social welfare payments and the free schemes have also been improved and extended. The eligibility criteria for these schemes have been improved, thus increasing the numbers availing of them. 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. While the eligibility conditions for the carer's allowance scheme have been eased in recent years, I am sure the Minister agrees that further improvements are necessary. We are all aware of applications that narrowly fail to meet the criteria. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to improve income limits and payment rates, and further relax the residency requirements.

I welcome the €10 increase for pensioners; the special €11 per week increase in contributory pensions for widows and widowers aged 66 years and over; the €8 and €10 increases in child benefit effective from April 2003; the €7 increase for widows and widowers under 66 years of age; the €6 increase for people in receipt of other payments; the €100 increase in respite care grants; and the increase in income disregard for the carer's allowance. All weekly increases are effective from January 2003 and that is to be welcomed.

I wish to remind Senator McCarthy that Proinsias De Rossa, a Member of the European Parliament, remains president of his party even though he offered to step down.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, said last year that his second budget provided significant increases in social welfare payments. It is true, we acknowledge that. It went some way towards bridging the gap. The Minister has broken his commitments and the expectations of old age pensioners, social welfare recipients and lone parents. All had raised expectations that they would be protected against inflation. One would imagine from the figures presented in the budget that we were protecting inflation. We have not protected it. Any increases given have been felled in one swoop with the increase in the television licence fee which affects every family. Most social welfare recipients will be worse off in 2003 than in previous years as a result of that increase and the 1% increase in VAT. If that is progress, then it is time we looked at new ways to protect those who need it most. Senator Cox referred to this point in her contribution.

Time and again we have heard from the Government benches that the country is in crisis and that we have to tighten our belts and pull back. We are not, thankfully, in an economic crisis. What we are suffering from is mismanagement by this Government, over the past three years in particular, of this country's finances. It is a pity the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, has to be the one to take the worst blow. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, had a choice to make but he did not make it. Does it stand up that we have to reduce social welfare increases to less than inflation rates while at the same time protecting the savings incentive scheme for others who, in some cases, have increased their contributions? The Minister for Finance ignored that and other glaring options because of his association with particular groups. We have heard from them all over the last fortnight.

If we provide only a 25 cent or 30 cent per week increase to a married couple with one child on unemployment benefit and say we are comfortable with that, then I do not know what will happen to us in the future.

We are told that in the past few days most health boards have received letters of determination for the forthcoming year. There is a serious shortfall in the figures for every health board. The tragedy is that the people who will be hit hardest are those we are talking about today, those in greatest need of protection. When other services fail, the people resort to local level and the health board for additional resources to keep them going in time of crisis. Every family, be they in receipt of social welfare payments or otherwise, faces a crisis during their lifetime. Such people turn to social welfare officers for assistance. We are now told there will be no emergency funding for crises within the health boards. That is another serious blow to the expectations of those who will, tragically, find themselves in need during the coming year.

We have also heard about the withdrawal of medical cards from certain people. Instead of extending that service to those in greatest need, we are contracting it. I support Senator Henry's suggestion that we categorise special needs for the increasing number of children suffering with asthma. Current structures are placing an added burden on families in receipt of medication for this condition.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs had to enter this and the other House with her hands up and acknowledge the severity of this budget and its lack of prioritisation. Health boards have now been notified of their cutbacks and their only leeway at local level has been closed off. We are in crisis.

I hope what has been analysed as an unfair, unjust and unacceptable budget, and an insult to so many people in need, the poorest people in the country, can be rectified by additional resources. Why has the Government gone back on a commitment, which was welcome, that payments would be made from 1 January? It is now talking about pushing them on to mid-February and paying them retrospectively in April. It is important that the increases are paid when they are due.

The other priority is the elderly. I disagree with what Senator Bannon said in regard to a pensioner in Longford. Pensioners have been supported wholeheartedly by this Government and the previous Governments and the €10 increase will edge us closer to the €200 baseline we want to achieve by 2007. Many other supports are being put in place through the household package to try to support the elderly, including the new initiative on energy. Very often there is a waste of energy and heating and I am hoping to pilot a new initiative in this regard in the near future to address the many concerns of the elderly. I am proud to say the elderly are a priority. Members will notice that we are turning into an ageing population. Therefore, support of the elderly is very important.

Tied to this is the important issue of carers. I said in the other House that we should reflect on where society is going. In my opinion the State should not take over the role of the family. However, it is the role of the State to give recognition and support to carers. Very often money is not necessarily what is needed in regard to caring; other supports are equally necessary. The money was provided in recent years through the carer's allowance, the income disregard for carer's allowance and the increases in carer's allowance, in particular respite care.

There was a new initiative two years ago which is very popular. This is carer's benefit and carer's leave, which has given people an opportunity to leave work and not lose out if one takes over as a carer for a particular period. These are tremendous changes and improvements in the carer's allowance scheme. This year I was in a position to increase the income disregard. The programme for Government allows for an additional 5,000 carers to be included in the carer's allowance scheme. I have been able to include another 1,700 carers this year, despite the fact that there are financial difficulties.

I appreciate there is a divergence of views as to whether removing the means test is the correct thing to do. We do not know how many carers there are. There is a view that some people can well afford to pay and they should not participate in a scheme to support those who cannot manage or cope. This is a debate which must take place. In the context of the means test, and based on the information available to us, it would cost an additional €150 million to include most carers in the carer's allowance scheme. We are moving towards the introduction of an additional 5,000 carers.

The long-term care financing report which my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, and I will publish in the new year will consider the reality of funding for long-term care. There has been much talk about the cost to the Department of Health and Children and health boards of supporting nursing homes and whether it would be best to consider home subvention in the context of increasing the carer's allowance under the health board initiatives. The reality is that in the future there will be a greater onus on the State because of the changing society, the change in families and the dispersal of many families throughout the country. Therefore, we must consider the resources available to us and how best to get value for money in the context of providing the best service. We will be progressing towards that achievement and I am sure the House will have an opportunity to discuss the reports when they are made available.

Many other issues were discussed, including housing. I appreciate housing is not my portfolio but it is an issue which reflects poverty and on people who cannot achieve. There are key targets under the NAPS which we hope to achieve in supporting those who are unfit to provide accommodation for themselves. In that regard, the Department provides through the SWA, the rent supplement scheme, which has not been changed since 1994. It has been increased this year to 10% of the basic payment, which is €12. That is the minimum contribution because it has been capped. Different health boards have different caps according to the amount of rent the health board sets as reasonable. There will be no change next year because the maximum rents will apply. However, the reality is that rents have decreased. One of my concerns in regard to the SWA and rent supplement is that if one looks at the cohort of people in receipt of it, the majority of them are not families but single people.

The most recent figures I saw indicated that about 2,000 elderly single people are in receipt of rent supplements. Middle-aged single men and women also receive rent supplements, as Senator Henry said. I am sure Senators, many of whom are members of local authorities, share my concerns—

The rural transport initiative pilot programme, which is being managed by Area Development Management, was also mentioned during this debate. The Minister for Transport recently announced that the pilot programme will be administered by his Department. The Government is examining how those who live in isolated rural areas can use their free travel passes and, in that context, I have provided funding to ADM, which will administer the private operators. Some 34 groups have been selected to receive funding and 18 new transport services will be provided as a consequence. Those of us from rural Ireland understand the importance of this new initiative. While it is fine to have a bus pass if one lives in an urban area, it is not quite so useful for those in rural areas who cannot get to large towns to go where they want. This is an important new initiative.

The Government has certainly indicated its support for the less well-off, especially in the context of the funding available and the priorities I have outlined. I have copper-fastened the social welfare increases that were made in recent years. If one examines the figures, one will see that my Department's budget package is between twice and three times the size of the taxation package, reflecting the fact that we have targeted the less well-off.