Deputy Boylan was in possession and he has 18 minutes remaining.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
As I said before Private Members' business, the Government has no concern for the difficulties and problems faced by old age pensioners, widowers, widows and people who depend on carers. I want to read a letter I received from a constituent who has given me permission to mention her name and address. She is Bridget Boyle from Loretto Road, Cavan. This letter will spell out in detail what is happening here in spite of the so-called Celtic tiger. It reads as follows:
To give a human side to this situation I am a person with a physical disability, a result of a RTA 25 years ago. When I was discharged from hospital after being there for over a year, there were no back up services put in place in order for me to return home and live with dignity and independence. I was issued with a wheelchair and a commode and left to cope alone. Only for a very supportive family, I would not have been able to manage. Recently, as part of my work with Irish Wheelchair Association, I carried out a home care assessment for a young man, who had recently been discharged from hospital with a similar spinal injury as myself. He has no home support, cannot access his bathroom and his house is completely inaccessible. Where is the progress here in our health service and our Celtic tiger economy?
Twenty-five years later, things have not changed for people with a physical/sensory disability. Shortfalls in revenue will have to be filled by borrowing and fundraising. This makes it impossible to plan the future and anticipate future levels of service.
It is not acceptable that such people have to fund raise, run raffles and hold church gate collections. Many backbenchers are aware of the difficulties, but the Ministers who have the ability to do something have reneged on these people. It is a sad reflection on a Government coming to the end of its term. Its members try to tell us what they will do for the next five years. On behalf of those people, thank God there will be no second term for this Administration.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the debate tonight. A few minutes ago we saw new things happening in this House in relation to electronic voting. It was nice to see on screen what we were voting for. It reminded me of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. All over Christmas, when I was having my dinner or tea, when I looked at the daily paper or the local paper I could see nothing but lovely photographs of the Minister who, like me, does not have much on top of his head. All that publicity must have cost a considerable amount of money. I would prefer to see that money spent on the elderly, the unemployed and the people who need it most.
In the last budget the Minister was generous in certain areas and yet the elderly never felt more vulnerable or more upset about what is going on. Elderly people like security in their homes and they like to be warm. I heard Deputy McGuinness speaking about the scheme the health boards and local authorities have in relation to special housing aid to give heating grants to the elderly. He made a very valid point and one that I have been making for a number of years. A couple of weeks ago I raised it here and asked the Department of Health and Children to investigate how the payment of heating grants can be speeded up. There is no need for two engineers from a council to come out. They are then followed by someone from the planning office and another executive from the health board. All those people get travel expenses from either the health board or the council. The elderly person then has to get two quotations from registered contractors. If it costs less than £10,000 to put in storage heaters or central heating for the elderly, they should just get one quotation and have the work done by anybody they like. The job should be done and approved by an inspector for grant aid rather than what they currently have to go through.
The Department should pay the grant to put alarms into the houses of the elderly under the monitoring scheme. There is much concern about that scheme. I have received delegations and have tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and I know the Comptroller and Auditor General is also concerned about it. It was introduced by Deputy Prionsias De Rossa as Minister in the last Government and it was intended to deal with the safety problems of the elderly. Nobody should make big money out of that scheme and it should be investigated because there seems to be an anomaly whereby only certain people can apply for that scheme and not the ordinary private contractors. That should not be the case. It is a good and worthy scheme that I support but it should not be abused and more people should be able to apply for it. I will take this up further at another forum.
The fuel allowance should be payable 52 weeks per year. The weather today is awful. How many days in the year do the elderly not have to put on a fire? We do not have a climate like Spain or Italy where they know they will get a few months of fine weather. We do not get fine weather here. We might get a few warm days but the evenings will be cold. These people have to put on a fire 52 weeks a year. That fuel scheme should be doubled and paid throughout the year.
Many other Deputies have already spoken about the carers. Some 130,000 people are looking after elderly people. I find it distressing to see women coming into my constituency office and clinics throughout the county, who look after elderly people. It is the hardest job and it is not right that they get no reward simply because their husbands are working and they exceed the means test threshold. I call on the Minister and the next Minister – I hope my party will be in Government – to deal with this problem so that people get rewarded for looking after the elderly.
I recently tabled a parliamentary question and was told it cost almost £700 per week to keep an elderly person in a State nursing home. That is just to keep them in the home and does not include the costs of staff, food, etc. It would be cheaper to give recognition to people who look after elderly people in their homes. Even if they are over the means test threshold they should get some recognition of £30, £40 or £50. Carers are not respected, rewarded or thanked. When people come to me I can see the stress in their eyes and how upset they are. Some of them do not get out at weekends and cannot get away from an elderly person who is dependent on them. However they get no reward from the State.
I must be honest in saying there has been a major attack on the unemployed by the Minister and his Department in recent years and it is a scandal. Some day the Minister and his Department will find themselves in court. When somebody loses his or her job after a long time in work, he or she goes into his or her local social welfare offices and is verbally attacked. I stand over that statement. They are required to bring in three letters showing they are seeking work. These are people that have worked hard and when they now want to draw their stamps they are treated like criminals when they go to some social welfare offices and that is not right. One day such a social welfare officer will be threatened with legal action because the unemployed person is merely drawing what he is entitled to and should not have to go through that experience.
On many occasions I have challenged the Minister to identify what jobs exist in these areas because there are none there. A directive seems to have been issued by the Minister or his Department. I have been told that people are treated like criminals when they go into the offices. They must then appeal the decision. The Department has been consistent with the Government in terms of waiting lists, which is the one thing the Government is good at. There are waiting lists for waiting lists for appeals for carer's allowance, unemployment benefit or any other assistance payment. Why is the Minister examining people's circumstances when he cannot deal with their appeals immediately? Why must they wait for six, seven, eight or nine months to be called for an appeal? The greatest laugh is that they must go to the community welfare officer and that the health board pays them instead of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. That looks good for the Minister and his officials whom he rewards by paying them a few pounds extra for knocking off honest, decent, hard working people who are only looking for their just entitlement from the State.
When a woman who worked for 14 years in the town in which I live left her job, she was asked for three letters. She did not know anything about letters because she had worked and paid her stamps all her life. She told me she felt like a criminal and was treated like one. She said she paid her PRSI and tax and that she was paying the wages of the Department staff. If the staff in the Department did not get their cheques next Friday, there would be an outcry and the offices would be closed because staff would walk out.
Will the Deputy give way?
I will not give way. The Minister has had enough time and public relations.
I will come back to the Deputy on that issue. He would need to be careful about what he says about the staff of the Department.
That is a typical Fianna Fáil answer – look after the staff. I am looking after the people I represent who pay their dues in the State and who are due their entitlements.
The Deputy is being unfair.
The Minister and his staff treat them like criminals. The people must fight their cases on appeal and must bring other people in with them.
The Deputy is all bluster.
I am not. I am hitting the Minister with the truth which hurts.
The Minister should allow the Deputy to finish.
I want to talk about the recent increases in social welfare. The Minister paid his spin doctors and the consultants in his Department.
I do not have spin doctors.
Some €300 million has been given to 75 spin doctors. The spin doctors, the friends of Fianna Fáil, were paid.
The Deputy is wrong as usual. He is hoodwinking the people.
That was the best employment the Government created.
Acting Chairman
The Minister should allow the Deputy to conclude.
The Minister should listen to me.
The Deputy is hoodwinking the people. He thinks he can shout people down.
We have listened to the Minister on RTE and on local radio at the taxpayers' expense.
Acting Chairman
The Minister will have a chance to reply to the debate. He should allow the Deputy to conclude.
The Deputy is full of bluster.
The Deputy is finding out the truth unlike the Minister.
I am getting the message through to the Minister. He does not like home truths.
The Deputy will not get one vote in his constituency on the basis of social welfare.
The Minister should let me have my say because he will have his say tomorrow when the spin doctors spin it out for him. Some €300 million has been paid to 75 spin doctors. As regards the recent increases in social welfare, the Minister and the Government did not show any courage when the famous euro came in on 1 January. I call it "the robber" because it robbed and crucified the poor as every product increased in price and the social welfare increases are not any good to them. The county councils also take the increases from them in house valuations. The Minister talked about the fact that the people would be better off. The people are waiting for the Minister and his colleagues in the long grass.
The Deputy is a joke.
When the Minister and his colleagues are on the doorsteps, the people will tell them about the photographs, the spin doctors and how hard it is to live in this country. There will be a new Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs after the next election. I hope he or she will show compassion, protect the people and give them the increases they need to cover the costs of living.
The Deputy does not read the opinion polls. He is a joke.
The Minister knows that what he and the Government have done over the past four and a half years has made the poor poorer. They have squeezed the middle class and made the rich richer.
The Deputy does not believe that.
The Government looked after its bookie and executive friends. The Tánaiste looked after the people who vote for her. There are more poor people than rich people, and their opportunity is coming.
They will vote Fianna Fáil. All the bluster from the Deputy will not change that.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy, without interruption.
The Minister should enjoy his stay with his officials because there will be another Minister in that Department who will show compassion towards these people and look after them. The Minister should get the last photographs taken and the spin doctors and consultants out because I have a message for them.
I do not have any spin doctors. I do it all my own way.
I am sure the Minister knows the song, "Now is the Hour". The hour is getting near and we are waiting and ready for the Government. As I said at the Ard-Fheis, we will fight it in the marts, the pubs and on the streets.
Where did I hear that before?
The Minister has let the people down badly.
The Deputy is shouting his way into the Front Bench.
He spent more money on public relations than any person on social welfare spent in the past five years. Shame on the Minister and on the Government. The people are waiting and they will give their verdict which will not be through the new voting system, but the old one.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ulick Burke.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am delighted Senator Chambers brought in Deputy Ring's friends from Mayo. He had a great audience to inform the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs about the many failures in the Bill and the effect they will have on people.
The Deputy has a short memory.
We know about the lack of a waste management policy from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in the north eastern part of the country. Yesterday a lady in her late 80s rang to tell me she was told at Christmas that the black plastic bag for refuse would cost approximately €2.50. However, someone told her yesterday that it would cost €5 per week. It will cost that lady €250 per year to get her one plastic bag collected each week. What a legacy for the Government to leave. How will that affect the increases in the budget? She also informed me that she used to be able to buy a 50 kilograms bag of coal for €8, but now she can only get a 40 kilograms bag for €10. Deputy Ring was right when he said that people, particularly the elderly in our community, cannot buy as many goods, particularly fuel, with the euro as they could with the pound.
I wish to make a number of points about how the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, have failed miserably in dealing with the 25% of the population who have lost their medical cards since the Government entered office. An accepted level of State-funded, free medical card cover for up to 40% of the population was agreed with general practitioners throughout the country in the past. At present, however, only 30% of the population have medical cards. One wonders how long waiting lists would be if the Government actually doubled the income limit for eligibility for medical cards as Fine Gael will do when elected to office after the general election. Thousands of children are not being brought to their GPs by their parents because they cannot afford to pay either for the service or the medicine prescribed. If the Minister does not know that, he is not in touch with reality. This fact has been communicated to me by GPs across the north east.
At health board level, a proposal was drawn up to introduce "Doc on call". Has anyone heard of this service? The Department has allocated a sum of £3 million towards putting it in place in the north east. It was approved, in principle and on a temporary basis, at health board level. Six months after the initial decision to proceed, many telephone calls are being made to the service seeking medical assistance, but many cases are not being dealt with as adequately as they should be. Elderly people are afraid to make contact because they believe they will not receive a response. Nine out of ten times they will not be able to contact anyone from their own GP's practice.
I now wish to turn to unemployment offices and the letters required from unemployed persons supposedly seeking work. Departmental officials will not accept the fact that some people living in rural areas of north Meath cannot travel to work because there is no public transport available. There are villages which are not serviced by public buses and people are obliged to walk between two and four miles to the nearest bus stop. Officials of the Minister's Department will not accept this as a good enough excuse for someone not being able to get to a place of employment. If a job exists in the places to which the people concerned travel, the income they would earn would not prove sufficient to purchase and insure a car. Will the Minster indicate if it is the Department's policy to cut off the unemployment payments of those who cannot travel to a place of employment? When they are cut off, they go to their community welfare officer and their name is removed from the unemployment register. This is a form of camouflage to hide the real figures. How often is this type of scenario played out across the country?
Many speakers referred to carers. The costs involved in keeping a person in a bed in some of the State owned retirement and nursing homes are phenomenal. It can cost between £500 and £700 per week to do so. We do not have a proper system in place. There is an eligibility clause which prevents people who are saving the State substantial money from claiming carer's allowance. When I was growing up, many did not have the opportunity to work. There was always someone in the family who could look after an elderly parent or parents. That is not the case today because people must provide for their children's education, pay high mortgage costs, etc. The Minister is not providing those who want to care for their elderly relatives with a fair opportunity to do so. They are being discriminated against through the medium of the means test, despite the fact that they are saving the State a substantial amount of money.
I welcome the increases in social welfare payments, but, unfortunately, they have been totally outweighed by the increases to which I referred which were caused by the euro changeover and the profiteering that has resulted from it. I provided two examples of this, one involving an 88 year old woman. The increases the Minister mentioned will be spent on covering her fuel costs and waste disposal charges. That should not be the case.
These issues must be addressed. The 15 members of the Cabinet stand condemned and indicted by virtue of the fact that they have not increased substantially the eligibility limit for medical cards in order that people and their children can access proper GP and pharmacy services. They cannot avail of either of these services because they cannot afford to do so.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I cannot but praise highly the social welfare officers who operate at national level. They are people who are extremely courteous, helpful and fair. Where they have an opportunity to display that fairness, they always avail of it. However, at local level there is a major variation in the consistency with which the rules and regulations are applied. Approximately two and a half years ago I raised a matter involving personnel from the main social welfare office in Galway who were obliged to travel out to east Galway. I refer, in particular, to an incident that occurred in Gort where there are two social welfare offices. On the occasion in question, neither of these was used to interview people called for review of their assessment. Instead a newly built hotel in the town was used. The people in question were obliged to wait in the public lobby before being called for interview.
I accept that this was a once-off, tragic mistake. At the same time, however, the Minister's Department should issue a direction to ensure something of this nature never happens again. It was unfortunate that many were embarrassed and intimidated. I sympathise with Deputy Ring in respect of the comments he made about a similar incident. Such incidents have occurred and it is regrettable that social welfare personnel, at that level, would behave in that way when there is no need for it, especially in the situation I instanced where there are two social welfare offices, ideally located and properly serviced at local level. I hope the Minister will look into that as a matter of urgency.
I will comment on the farm assist scheme which appears to be a failure. It was introduced with a great fanfare of publicity but I believe the Minister must admit that it has proved to be a total disaster because of failure to apply it—
That is not so.
If the Minister maintains it is a success, I would like to hear his reasons for that view. It has failed to supplement the incomes of the farming community, as it was intended to do, outside of what was traditionally termed the farmers' dole. Any supplement of income that was generated and means tested from that, as a result of the current scheme, has failed miserably to enhance the incomes of farmers who need an income supplement. The farm assist scheme, because of the application and the means test which is part of it and despite all the write-offs that are supposed to apply, has benefited very few people. If the Minister can provide information as to the increasing numbers who have availed of this scheme and the number of farmers who have benefited, I will accept that. However, I know from experience in my constituency where the majority of farmers are small farmers, that the number of applicants is miserably low and the number who have succeeded in qualifying under the scheme is so few that it is clearly proven to be a failure. It is regrettable that there has not been a substantial revamping of the scheme to make it worthwhile for people to avail of it.
As far as I can see, the question of pro rata pensions for the self employed has not been dealt with in the Social Welfare Bill. Although it is pro rata in name, it is certainly not applied in that way.
It is not pro rata.
It was introduced in those terms.
No.
The self employed who had made contributions for up to five years were to get no pension and that is fair enough – very few people would imagine that one could get any portion of a pension with less than five years contributions. However, there is no recognition for those with five to nine years contributions; those in that category only get a half pension and, with ten years contributions, one gets a full pension. Will the Minister explain why increases in pensions are halved, proportionately, in this instance, whereas an old age non-contributory pensioner on a reduced pension gets the full increase? That inconsistency needs to be tackled and a readjustment made. If one is entitled to an increase, one should get the full increase. People in the small group who fall into the category which I have described are being victimised in that regard. Many people have made past contributions in respect of part time work, which was part and parcel of the normal working year for many farmers. Many of them participated in forestry schemes and with the Land Commission on a seasonal basis but it is now practically impossible for them to trace their past contributions for such employment. Others were employed by local authorities on various road building schemes and they also have suffered because of the lack of recognised contributions or the availability of access to the records of such past contributions. That is a serious drawback and many people have lost out as a result of a small shortfall in the qualifying period of contributions.
I put it to the Minister that it is time to abolish the multiplicity of assessments which apply in this country. There is no consistency between one assessment and another. It is extraordinary that accounts which are perfectly adequate and acceptable to the Revenue Commissioners are not acceptable to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Why is there such an inconsistency and why is it necessary to have duplication of assessments as between medical cards, social welfare payments, farm accounts and for so many other purposes? I cannot understand why there is no common assessment system.
With regard to the overall budget package of social welfare increases, the Combat Poverty Agency has said the budget maintains living standards but falls short of the £14 increase recommended by the agency to provide an adequate income. That was a missed opportunity in the budget, as many other speakers have already said. On the day the Government's health strategy was launched, it was flagged that the income guidelines for medical cards would be reviewed as part of the Government's budgetary strategy and there would be significant improvements in income guidelines in order to increase the number of persons on low incomes who are eligible for medical cards and to give priority to families with children, particularly children with disability. Two days later, in relation to primary care strategy, it was announced that there would be no changes until 2003. That is a sad indictment of this Government's contribution to people in absolute need.
I compliment the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his officials on what has been done over the past five years for the less well off sector of our society. Unemployment has been reduced to one of the lowest levels in the EU. Almost 100,000 people have left the live register in a few years and I compliment the Government for what it has done to create employment across the country.
In the budget, the Minister for Finance provides for the most vulnerable in our community and those whose need is greatest, with the increases in child benefit, pensions and social welfare payments from January 2002. Increases in social welfare will now be payable more than five months earlier than when this Government took office.
The £850 million additional social welfare spending announced in this budget equals last year's increases and means across the board increases for all social welfare recipients. These increases mean that, despite a more difficult economic situation, the less well off will fare best. The total social welfare budget this year will be more than £7.4 billion and the increases announced in this budget, particularly for older people, carers and the unemployed represent further steps toward reducing poverty and disadvantage.
Families will benefit greatly from this budget. For the second successive year, child benefit has gone up by £25 per month for first and second children and by £30 for third and subsequent children. These increases bring a monthly payment for the first and second child to £92.62 and for third and subsequent children to £116. A family with three children will now receive £301.24 compared with £221 at present. This is an increase of £80 per month or 36%. Child benefit has trebled since this Government took office. The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance is also to be improved. From this year, 70,000 children aged 12 years and over will benefit from an increase in the payment rates which have been raised to £94 per child. By easing the means test, another 8,000 children will be eligible for inclusion in this scheme. An increase in the income threshold for family income supplement will bring the average payment to £59 per week per family.
The elderly in our society will also gain significantly. The full personal rate of old age pension, retirement and invalidity pensions is to rise by a minimum of £10 per week. This brings the old age contributory pension to £116 per week and the old age non-contributory pension to £105 per week. These increases mark an increase of almost 50% in the pensions over the past five budgets and these amounts also exceed Government commitments on entering office to raise old age pensions beyond the £100 mark. The increases are well ahead of inflation and will mean a real improvement in the living standards of our elderly. The fuel allowance is being increased by £2.09 per week which is the first increase in the allowance since 1985. The number of months covered by the scheme was increased last year and it now operates from October to mid-April. The free electricity allowance gives an extra 300 free units to bring the allowance up to 1,800 units and qualification criteria for the free telephone allowance are to be relaxed. There will be further improvements in tax relief for the elderly. Income tax exemption limits have been substantially increased in the past four budgets. It is only right that the Government has rewarded the older generation for their sacrifices, work and contribution to making the economy what it is today.
I thank nearly all the Deputies for their remarks in the course of this debate but I cannot allow the occasion to pass without saying that I unreservedly condemn Deputy Ring for the attack he made on officials in my Department. While Members on both sides of the House may put up with comments and attacks on each other, we cannot stand over the type of attack he perpetrated on officials in a Department. In my parliamentary party, any time Members refer to how Departments are doing in relation to their services to people, my Department is held up as a paragon. Deputies in my party say that other parties should be as good and should carry out their duty in a similar fashion. I unreservedly condemn Deputy Ring.
When my officials are doing their job – and that is all they are doing – they are merely following the guidelines that were set down while Deputy Ring's own party was in office. I signed the regulations ultimately, but the preparation of those regulations happened when Deputy De Rossa was Minister and was supported by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. The officials in my Department are working according to guidelines laid down by a Fine Gael-led Government. Before Deputy Ring blathers in this House, condemning people who are not here to defend themselves, he should check the record.
A number of Deputies raised questions about my record in this office. I am proud of that record. Since I became Minister, for five years in a row, I have been able to bring forward, in each successive year, the largest budget package increase with record increases across the board. Deputy Broughan alleged that I had not brought forward innovative measures but I brought forward more innovative measures than his party did when they were in office.
What about the Bills? They are still on the Order Paper.
The Minister is filibustering. He should stop.
I brought forward the effective payment dates to the beginning of the year.
Rubbish. What about inflation?
We put forward new targets for the elimination of poverty, we brought forward the special pension for the self-employed – so now 4,000 people who did not qualify prior to this Government taking office and who were over 56 at the time are now qualifying for a special pension. We brought in a special rate pension for those people with pre-1953 insurance so there are now 18,500 people qualifying in that respect. We brought all the free schemes for people over 75 and the following year down to apply to people over 70. We totally reformed the carers allowance scheme.
They are still waiting.
There are now 19,500 people in receipt of the carers allowance.
The Minister would not bite the bullet.
I brought forward a new carers benefit, which other parties – including the Deputy's own – had talked about for years. We brought forward the new farm assist scheme for which there are now many more people qualifying than there were on the smallholders dole and they are getting more money.
How many did the Minister take off it?
We brought forward the new bereavement grant. Before the Government took office, the death grant was £100 whereas today it is £500 or €635. We also brought in the bereavement widowed parent grant which now stands at €2,500.
The Minister neglected the widows.
We brought forward the new family support services, a new family support agency, bereavement counselling grants, a massive programme in relation to family research and we are bringing forward a longitudinal study of children which will be one of the major planks of the Government's record. We also brought forward a pension Bill and totally reformed the civil registration office.
There are many children still in poverty.
Need I go on? The record speaks for itself, Deputy Broughan.
(Interruptions.)
In regard to the comments on this budget some Members said it was anti-poverty and it was not curing poverty. I remind the Deputies who are very selective in what they quote that the ESRI was very positive in regard to the social welfare increases of this budget. It said the largest gains in the budget were for those depending on welfare.
What about Fr. Healy?
Pensioners and unemployed persons without children gained between 2% and 4% while unemployed people with children gained an average of more than 7%. The ESRI said that budget 2002 gave the greatest boost to incomes of those at the bottom of the income distribution while gains at the top were less than 1%. If Opposition Members do not believe the ESRI, the Combat Poverty Agency said it was very pleased with the proportion of spending dedicated to welfare measures in the budget. Significant progress has been achieved in this budget with 68% of available resources now going towards expenditure. Deputy Ring may bluster and shout, but I am as good as him at shouting.
Inspector Clousseau.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Hayes and Deputy Broughan criticised the payments in regard to child benefit.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): On a point of order. Since I came in here the Minister is winding up and replying to the debate. This Minister is continuing with the usual filibuster of a Second Stage speech.
(Interruptions.)
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is a point of order.
Deputy Broughan and Deputy Hayes criticised the payment arrangements in regard to child benefit. Shame on them. They are the people that increased child benefit by a measly £1 in September 1997, although it was announced the previous December.
Through the Chair, I ask the Minister to give way.
I will not give way. My time is restricted.
The Minister is running away from a debate.
(Interruptions.)
This Government gave £25 two years in a row for each of the first two children and £30 for the third and subsequent child. A number of Deputies, including Deputy Broughan, raised the issue of social welfare expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The reality in regard to the EUROSTAT figures is that the indicators are not what they would suggest.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Deputy Hayes.
There has been substantial increases in expenditure in real terms because of our considerable economic growth.
The Minister will not take the question.
(Interruptions.)
This is not Question Time. The Deputy had his chance to speak. Because of the economic policies of the Government there are fewer people unemployed.
(Interruptions.)
Because of economic growth our percentage of GDP is far higher in regard to our spend on social protection. We do not treat people like the Labour Party does. It nannies people, but at least it knows what its position is, Fine Gael does not even know what its position is. It is a bit like the abortion referendum. I have a lesson for Deputy Hayes in regard to the issue he raised relating to poverty.
I call for a quorum.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Deputy Hayes issued a statement tonight in regard to the national anti-poverty strategy review and he got it all wrong, God love him. He said that the £150 is only £32 extra over the period. For the first time in 20 years Fr. Seán Healy has complimented the Government. For the first time ever the Government has decided to benchmark the lowest social welfare rate at 30% of gross average industrial earnings. This is a substantial and welcome commitment. The National Women's Council came out tonight in welcoming that also. The Fine Gael printer will be printing as we leave the House tonight and its Deputies will be going to their constituencies claiming credit for something that had nothing to do with them.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Please allow the Minister, Deputy Hayes.
The Government delivered the biggest social welfare package in the history of the State and nobody else can claim credit for it.
Question put and agreed to.
I declare the Bill read a Second Time in accordance with Standing Order 111(2).