I propose to share my time with Deputy Paul McGrath.
Social Welfare Bill, 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Deputy has 30 minutes.
I will start where the Minister left off and quote the last line of her speech. It states: "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." Today CORI stated that the budget was unfair, unjust and unacceptable and that the Government has insulted Ireland's poorest people again. CORI is a Christian organisation. How could the Minister allow this to happen? I knew there were bad days ahead when I saw the former Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, leaving the Department because he liked to believe that he was a Minister for good news.
This budget has attacked the people on social welfare and, with inflation running at almost 6%, an increase of €6 has been wiped out overnight. We used to have a budget every year. Since this Government came into office we have had a budget not every week but every hour on the hour. No later than Tuesday night we heard the Minister for Health and Children on the drug subsidy scheme; on Wednesday we had the Minister for Social and Family Affairs; on Thursday we had the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen; and today, through the media, our own Minister attacked the most vulnerable in society again by attacking the back to work scheme. In the past a person who had been unemployed for 15 months could avail of the back to work scheme. Now a person must be unemployed for five years before he or she can avail of that scheme. That is outrageous. It is an attack on the poor and the weak, on people that want to get back to work. The Minister should change her mind immediately because this scheme encourages people to get back into the workplace.
The budget was outrageous. Before the Government Deputies are flown in tomorrow with their scripts prepared by the programme managers, I will demonstrate how I could straight away allocate €21 million to the Department and then go on with my speech. The Minister, following the tradition of the last Minister – she is more photogenic than the last Minister – spent €310,000 on advertising the personal public service number. I wondered why Independent Newspapers and RTE were doing favourable articles about her. They were getting big money out of social welfare while people on the breadline were not able to live in this country. That is outrageous. The other money I could save relates to my favourite area. I want the officials to take note of this and bring it to the attention of the Department. I want CORI, the St. Vincent de Paul, and all the people of this country to know what is going on here. In the past two years the Department of Social and Family Affairs spent €19,620,242.45 on reports and consultants' fees. Consultancy is the fastest growing industry here and one would think the consultants were the people who were in need of and short of money. I have saved €21 million for the Department in two minutes, and I am not the Minister. If that money was spent on the people who need it most, I would be happy.
Imagine what the Deputy would do if he had an hour.
I listened to the Minister, to spokespeople and to spin doctors. They talked about increases of €6 and €10. With inflation running at almost 6% last week's increase has already been wiped out. The 1% VAT increase means the price of food and electricity will go up. The cost of a television licence is being increased and, in the new year when the county councils calculate their rents again, the few euro that people got will be taken from them.
It is a shame.
I am upset about this and I am fighting for these people. It is not right that the Minister should do this to the most vulnerable in society.
The spin doctors talked about all that has been done for people on social welfare. I acknowledge that over the past few years there were fairly generous increases. The Government promised a three-year programme regarding child benefit. The best year of the programme was this year – last May, a couple of days before the general election, people on social welfare got all their back money and all their payments.
How much did the Deputy get?
Do not upset him.
One might think that would not happen.
We gave people what they are entitled to.
That is what gives politics and politicians a bad name. That is why people do not want to vote. That is why they are sick and tired of politics. It was a three-year programme. The Minister was writing a book last year, a best seller. We had the "green" choir at the back clapping about all the increases. This week the green choir was not to be heard. It was the silent green choir. There was no clapping because they have caught it on the ground since they went home last week and people are quite upset. If the Government wanted to do the decent, honest thing, it would have frozen the price of all foodstuffs since 1 January last year to give everybody an opportunity to adjust. Since the euro was introduced prices have been going up every day. If one goes into a supermarket to buy a packet of nappies, and the Minister would know all about that—
I am past that stage.
She knows the cost of living. It cannot be paid for on the increases the Minister gave last week.
What about the one before it, and the one before that?
The big issue the Government talked about, child benefit, amounted to €8 per month. I went to the supermarket the other day and could not buy a loaf of bread for €2, which is what the Minister gave the children of this country. If there were five weeks in the month it would amount to €1.75. It is not right. It is no wonder CORI was appalled. I will quote a few other statements from this in a moment.
I thought the Deputy had his own ideas.
This is a Christian organisation. It speaks for the poorest of the poor, and it is appalled.
The three wise men in the Department know a lot about social welfare.
The Deputy heard what I said last week.
Like all rich people they did not start the cuts with Alex Ferguson and his horse, Rock of Gibraltar. He can bring his stallions into this country and get millions of pounds and walk away tax free. Where did the three wise men start? They started with the poor and the weak. Now they want to look at child benefit, if not to get rid of it altogether, to tax it. The Minister is a woman, and a woman of whom I am very fond. She should not allow this to happen. That is money women get into their hands and statistics show that it is spent on their children. Some men are very rich but they are very mean and some of the women of this country never handle a pound from them. However, they get child benefit into their hands and I am opposed to taxing it or getting rid of it. I say to the Minister now, do not do it. If she does, it will be the end of Fianna Fáil and the end of her.
It will be the end of children too.
The Minister must not allow it to happen.
The Deputy heard what I said last week.
I said that before. I want the Minister to look at another anomaly. Twins receive 150% of the normal monthly rate of child benefit, but other multiple births receive 200% of the normal monthly rate. The Irish Multiple Births Association has sought changes in this area for many years and I am asking the Minister to look at its request in the context of the Social Welfare Bill, 2002. Parents of twins encounter great costs and the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, should make all multiple births equal. It is hard enough for a woman with one child, but she needs even greater support if she has two or three. I am asking that the matter be dealt with.
The most disgraceful aspect of this year's budget was that child dependent allowance was not increased. The groups that made submissions to the Department were looking for an increase of at least €25, but there was no increase for the children of this State. I am very upset about this matter. The Minister has spoken about introducing a second Bill, but I want a supplementary budget to try to increase child allowances in line with inflation. The status quo is not fair or right.
While I compliment the Government for looking after widows and widowers over the age of 66 in the budget, I am concerned about those under that age. Since the foundation of the State, such people have represented the most forgotten sector of Irish society. It is bad enough to lose one's partner and to find that one's income has been massively reduced without discovering that the State will do little to help. It is wrong that such people should receive unfair treatment and more should be done to help them. I call on the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to bring those under 66 into line with those over that age as soon as possible. I am concerned about the free schemes in the case of a widow under 60 years of age whose partner is older. If her partner dies, she will lose her free scheme entitlements. I know that an adjustment was made in relation to this matter last year, but I propose that people in such circumstances be allowed to retain their benefits for a year. It is hard enough to lose one's partner without losing out financially as well.
I intend to discuss carer's allowance on all stages of this Bill, as carers have been let down by the Government. There are more than 100,000 carers in Ireland, but only about 23,000 of them receive payments from the State. The 75,000 carers approximately who do not receive any assistance are the forgotten people of this country. They provide a wonderful service and I call on the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, to do something to help them. The time has come to recognise the work of those who, because of their means, are not assisted by the State.
The Western Health Board did damage to those who help old people in their homes when it ran out of money last year. The Ministers opposite may be able to stand over that, but I would not be able to sleep at night if I were a member of a Government that was involved in such a measure. I would bring in the chief executive of the health board and tell him that I intended to resign if he did not resign, but I would ensure that he did so. I do not blame the Minister for Finance for writing to the Minister for Health and Children, as somebody has to do something about what is happening in the health service. If one examines the Official Report from the time when I was Fine Gael's health spokesman, one will see that I said that I would sack the officials in the health service and start again.
Is the Deputy going to line out for the Mayo team in the all-Ireland?
The present state of the health service is outrageous.
It is easy for the Minister to laugh, but Deputy Ring is telling the truth.
This is a serious business. The provisions of the national fuel scheme are so inadequate that one would think we were living in Spain. Those who are in charge of it seem to think we get nine months of sunshine, as it has not been extended or increased. The two things that old or vulnerable people want in their homes are safety and warmth, but many of them will be unable to buy a bag of coal tonight as a result of the Government's loss of control over what is going on in this country. The fact that the fuel allowance has not been increased in this Bill represents an attack on the elderly and is an indictment of the Ministers. They have allowed this to happen when they could have used some of the €21 million I showed them how to save some moments ago.
Newspapers, including The News of the World, praised the Christmas bonus provisions made by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I can appreciate why she was given such a write-up, considering her Department's media expenditure. It spent about €300,000 as follows: €120,000 on television advertising, €44,000 on radio advertising and €132,000 on advertising the PPSN in newspapers.
What about the photographs?
That money would buy a lot of coal and other fuel and could be used to help many elderly people. The greatest scandal of all is that 190,000 people on social welfare benefits do not qualify for the Christmas bonus.
That is right.
What did Fine Gael do? Did it even think of giving a Christmas bonus?
I did not interrupt the Minister.
The last Fine Gael Government did not have the money to pay the bonus.
The Minister who received the favourable reviews does not like the truth. The newspapers did not ask me, as Opposition spokesman, to write an article contradicting the Minister. I would be allowed to write an article in the newspapers if I was providing €300,000.
It could be Deputy Ring's photograph in the newspapers.
The Deputy would be given the whole newspaper to make his point.
He would be allowed to write in The Western People.
That much is true. The Government is targeting people on short-term unemployment benefits, who are paying into the pension fund, by not paying them the Christmas bonus.
That is right.
It is especially wrong given that the fund is in the black. The previous Minister in this Department took €650 million from the fund, so why can the current Minister not take €300 million or €400 million to deal with the short-term unemployed, carers and others? We should be helping such people instead of assisting Alex Ferguson and people like him.
I would also like some answers about UK pensions, particularly about how interest is collated at the beginning of the year. Where can I get the 10% that is being taken from English pensions? I know the SSIA scheme will give me €1 for every €4 I invest, but 10% is not a bad return for those who have more money to invest. Thousands of people would like to know how they can get involved. People who left this country in the 1930s and 1940s sent money home to their mothers and fathers in Ireland from the United States and England. Many of them who have returned home with a portion of a pension are penalised when they do so. It is not right and we should do something about it. Special attention should be given to the way in which interest is calculated on the moneys. I am asking the Government to re-examine this matter, as it is not right.
Rent subsidies are also being attacked, to the detriment of the most vulnerable in society. Why is the Government afraid to take on the vested interests in the property sector rather than the weak? Family income supplement is another source of concern. The former Minister in this Department, Deputy Dermot Ahern, calculated last year that an additional 2,500 people would qualify for the supplement as a result of changes he made in last year's Social Welfare Bill. The Department made great savings when it transpired that only 400 people qualified.
That was because people were earning more.
Before I allow my colleague, Deputy Paul McGrath, to speak, I wish to discuss the increase of €30 in the back to school clothing allowance in the case of children over 12 years of age. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has children, just as I do and she knows that one could not purchase a pair of shoes for €30.
Or a hat.
It is not right. This year's budget was the meanest of all budgets. There are three tiers of society at present – the poor, who are getting poorer; the middle classes, who are being squeezed, and the rich who are getting richer. This is supposed to be a just society which looks after its weakest members, but this budget contradicts such notions. It is a shame that I have to finish as I would like to quote from the Conference of Religious of Ireland. CORI has calculated that those who received an increase of €6 in the budget are better off this week by 30 cent.
That is right.
They may not be better off by that amount next week as probably there will be another budgetary announcement tomorrow.
Absolutely.
I do not know what Minister is bringing his or her Department's ideas to the House tomorrow. The people are angry about the dishonesty of this Administration since it came into power. I have listened to the anger in my constituency and on the radio stations. It is a sad day for Ireland. We will be judged on what we have done by the people who come after us. It was a shameful budget.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Ring, for sharing his time with me and I compliment him on the way he fights for the less well-off in society.
Hear, hear.
I hope the Minister takes seriously the points made by the Deputy and does not go the way of her predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who occupied her position for some time. I suspected when he opted to leave the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs that there was bad news coming.
He knew what was coming.
He felt he was the Minister for good news. He used to come in here and give us history lessons. He would tell us that the last time our crowd was in Government we gave this amount and that amount. I hope the Minister will not go down that road. Straight away, however, she is adopting the tactics—
The Deputy will shortly be talking about the Boer War.
Or the Crimean War.
The Minister is adopting Deputy Ahern's approach. Already she has launched a big media and photographic campaign.
I heard there was a photograph of him over there.
That is the way he went out. He was blazoned all over the television and the newspapers, talking on radio, telling people to contact their friendly Minister because he was the one who would deliver for them. The Minister should put on the brakes. Deputy Ahern was not interested in looking after the poor people of this country and nor was that Government.
That is not true.
I will give an example. Let us take the example, during the term of the last Government from 1998 to last year, of a young, single person with no commitments earning €60,000 – which is not a bad salary, we were not earning that at the time. What did the Government give back to such a person in tax breaks over that period? His or her tax bill was reduced by €6,000. How much did the former Minister, Deputy Ahern, give to a single person on unemployment benefit over the same period? He gave him or her €33 per week. The person on €60,000 got €120 per week into his or her pocket, while the person on social welfare got €33. How can the Minister justify that? How can she say that is reasonable and just? She cannot do so as it is impossible to justify.
CORI's justice commission issued a press release today regarding the budget. The headline states: "unfair, unjust, unacceptable! Government insults Ireland's poorest people again." Is it not outrageous that any Government should have a headline like that written about it? It was not written by a right-wing organisation or a crowd of pinkos, but a Christian organisation working with poorer people and trying to improve their lot. The analysis goes on to say:
Budget 2003 marks a moment of truth for this Government. It has dramatically failed to address the substantial poverty and social exclusion which still persists in Ireland today. It has widened the gap between the rich and the poor, a gap which is the worst in the EU.
I hope the Minister, when she responds, will try to address some of those issues. I hope she will take a serious look at the criticism that has been heaped upon her and that she will come back and say something worthwhile. The CORI report goes on to state: "An unemployed couple with one child will be 25 cents a week better off in real terms than they were in 2002." Twenty five cent a week. If the Minister saw somebody on the street holding out a plastic cup she would give him or her more than that.
I would not think so.
Is it not dreadful to give a couple on social welfare with one child 25 cent a week? Then we can go down through all the other things mentioned. As my colleague, Deputy Ring, said, every day when we open the newspapers there is some other cutback or announcement. The Minister has done her fair share of it. She capped the rent allowance and I know why – because it went to €300 million per year. This has occurred because the Government has allowed the rental market to go mad. If that €300 million was ploughed into local authority houses and affordable housing schemes the problem would be eased and the need for intervention in rent allowance would be reduced. The Minister did not do that, however. All she did was put a cap on the allowance and make those people more miserable than they already were. That is not fair.
Deputies Ring and Penrose told me earlier today that the Minister has now put a cap on the back to work allowance. I do not know how she can justify that. On Committee Stage of this Bill, Deputies Ring, Penrose and I will table amendments to increase the child dependant allowance. The Minister will have a brief prepared by her officials and I can tell her what it will say because I have done this before and I am used to their briefs. Of course, they are used to what I say too. They can probably prepare it in advance.
Absolutely – the Deputy gives the same speech every budget.
They will say that we must not increase the child dependant allowance because it is a disincentive to work. However, one of the incentives to work is the back to work allowance.
That is right.
Many a person has gone back to work because that tipped the balance and when they actually get out working they enjoy it and they like the few pounds in their pocket. This is a major incentive to go back to work which the Minister has taken away. It is not fair.
The child dependant allowance has remained stable for a number of years. We have three different rates of allowance. If the father is unemployed one rate of child dependent allowance obtains; if the father is a widower the rate is different and if he is on an invalidity pension the rate is different again. How can that be justified? Three children sitting beside each other in school can be getting three different rates of child dependant allowance. It cannot be justified. Why will the Minister not do anything about it? It is because she knows that the only way of solving the problem is to go to the higher rate and she has not got the money. The Minister for Finance will not give her the money so the unjust situation continues. She is prepared to treat people differently, not to give everyone a fair crack of the whip, rather than to fight for the extra money needed.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, made his name on individualisation of taxation. Did he go down the road of individualisation for the social welfare system? No. It only suits the Government in the taxation system.
That is right.
Individualisation in social welfare would cost them a few pounds more so they will not do anything about it.
There is a whole range of anomalies that could be mentioned. I will describe something to the Minister which I also told her predecessor and I hope she is concerned enough to do something about it. Two gentlemen live next door to each other in Mullingar. Deputy Penrose probably knows them too. They both came home from England and one of them went to work. He will be retiring in a couple of years. He will have worked in Ireland for about 15 years and paid full stamps for the whole period. He will draw a pension at 66.
His next door neighbour came home and worked for a short time. He did a FÁS scheme, became unemployed and then retired. He applied for his pension and got the full rate of contributory old-age pension because he had accumulated enough contributions in the ten-year period since he had come home from England on FÁS schemes and so on – fair play to him. The first man, who will be retiring next year, has worked for 13 years in this country, never drew the dole or entered a FÁS scheme and paid all his taxes. According to our projection he will not get a pension. This is because when he was 15 he was employed – illegally – by Leitrim County Council. Deputy Penrose is shaking his head – he knows the man I am talking about. He clocked up a year's employment with Leitrim County Council when he was 15. When the Department of Social and Family Affairs looked at his contributions, it said that he had 52 from when he was 15 and, taking into account the more recent contributions, concluded that he was in the workforce in Ireland for 50 years. His total number of Irish stamps was divided by 50 and he qualified for half a pension. Is it fair that a man who has contributed so much should be treated in that manner?
The budget introduced by the Minister for Finance last week has been roundly and justifiably condemned by many people and organisations for its inequitable and unjust provisions, particularly the effects it will have on the poorest in our society, the unemployed, the underprivileged, the socially excluded and all of those who are in most need of and deserving of our social support. When the Minister for Finance was in Opposition in 1997, in criticising the budget of the rainbow coalition Government, he stated that when cutbacks in Government spending are necessary, "it is always the poor at the bottom of the scale who suffer most". In this budget he has amply demonstrated his belief in and commitment to that principle.
The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, in introducing the social welfare provisions of the budget, has spelt out in detail the extent of the injustice being inflicted by this Government on weaker sections of society. As I listened to the Minister for Finance's Budget Statement, I felt some sympathy for his colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, in her first year at the Cabinet table, for the miserable hand the Minister for Finance had dealt her to cope with the demands of her Department. An increase of €530 million, compared with more than €1 billion in each of the previous two years when Deputy Dermot Ahern was Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, makes it impossible to make progress in advancing services for the poor and disadvantaged.
My sympathy did not last long. She has to ensure that people who are utterly dependent on her Department's payments are properly looked after and it is up to her to fight her case in Cabinet. She must roll away the right wing ideology of the Progressive Democrats. They are all for the business class, they have no interest in the working class and even less for the underprivileged or those dependent on the State. I know them and their type and that is how they feel.
The Minister is participating in an orchestrated campaign by members of the coalition parties to claim that the Government, in this budget, is treating social welfare recipients fairly. One of them had the neck to say it is a socialist budget. If that is a socialist budget I do not know what I am because I am a socialist and I believe in increasing taxes to pay for the poor. The Progressive Democrats want the rich to get richer and to widen the gap but I believe in helping the poor because some day I will be old and I hope there will be young people who have the same view of life as me, that the better off must ensure the marginalised, the underprivileged and the less well off are looked after. Lip service is no good.
In the Minister's own words, this Government has copper-fastened social welfare payments and budget increases will be delivered to all the Department's weekly customers. No one disputes that the increases, which, when inflation is discounted, are but a pittance, will be delivered. The amounts involved, however, are unacceptable. The CORI Justice Commission highlighted that the unemployed get a real increase of 30 cent per week. An unemployed couple with one child gains 25 cent a week. Children get a real increase of 54 cent per week. I hope the bars of chocolate are not too dear where they go to school.
The Minister for Finance told us that the projection for inflation was 4.8%. Now some of our very well-to-do stockbrokers have indicated that it could be more than 6%. Where does that leave the 6% increase? One forecast was for 6.5%, making the increases negative in real terms. Deputy Ring, who does not mince his words, was right; we will have to have a mini-budget. It should be a budget for the poor and the wealthy should be made to pay. They have creamed enough off for long enough. I am always prepared to pay a penny extra at the top rate but I am a socialist. I would not have too many bedfellows in the right wing parties that frequent this House.
CORI characterised the budget's provisions using the headline "Unjust, Unfair, Unacceptable! The Government insults Ireland's poorest people again". I find the provisions of the budget, as far as the poorest of people are concerned, to be insulting. The claim by Government Deputies that it is looking after the weakest in this budget is equally insulting to our intelligence. It takes a hard necked effrontery to claim that the real increase of 25 cent per week, which would not buy a Milky Bar, is looking after the needs of the unemployed family.
The Minister for Finance has boasted that pensions increased by over 50% during his term, and they did, but he forgot to tell us that the old age pension is now a smaller percentage of the average industrial wage than it was in the late 1970s. Thus, many pensioners without occupational pensions suffer a sharper real drop in their disposable incomes on retirement than they would have 20 years ago. It can be seen that the Minister for Finance has given parsimoniously in this budget with one hand and taken away with great alacrity with the other.
Every day since the budget.
There has been a budget a day and if we are not careful there will be one in the morning and one in the evening the way things are going.
Domestic inflation is double the EU average by virtue of the Minister's profligacy and recklessness when times were good. The current budget, by increasing VAT and other charges, will add 1% to inflation and it is now predicted that inflation will run at 6% per annum next year. He was out in his figures for long enough. He had to engage in Paul Daniels trickery to get money from next year and pull it back into this year. I know because I had to pay twice in November. Of course, instead of raising capital gains tax, he tinkers around the edges and looks after his friends by bringing it back. The reduction in capital gains tax was a disgrace. It was done to suit a few on a promise in the Bacon report that it would provide cheap sites for people. What did they do? They garnered the profits themselves and did not give two sugars if people were living in caravans.
This increase in inflation completely dissipates the social welfare increases in the budget. Many social welfare recipients, as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul acknowledges, will be worse off as a result of this budget. All increases for many social welfare recipients will be clawed back by the changes in rent supplements and the capping of the rent allowance. This has rightly been condemned by housing groups and community welfare officers. I looked at the principal Act and I wonder if what is being done is legal. Whatever legal advice was given to the Minister about implementing this measure should be furnished to the House. People are entitled to a basic level of subsistence to survive and if by capping they are deprived of that, is it in accordance with section 266 of the principal Act? I have my doubts that it is.
McDowell advised her.
The Minister for everything.
Community welfare officers and health boards will be seeking legal advice about the implementation of this measure and the sooner the better. It is pathetic. The Minister is using a blunt instrument to control rent instead of introducing legislation to deal with rent restriction and control. This will impoverish people and impact solely on the weakest and poorest.
There will be a cut of 5% in social housing in the coming year in this supposedly socialist budget. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that someone had the hard neck to call it that. If that is the case, we should all get out of the left wing spectrum. We certainly do not know what socialism is about if the Government can get away with calling this budget socialist. I would not be surprised if they get away with it.
In the recently published review of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy, the so-called Goodbody report, it was made clear that the majority of the income advocacy group proposed a formal linkage between adult welfare rates and average earnings to ensure the incomes of social welfare recipients keep pace with those of the wider population. If such a proposal had been accepted by the Government, it would have protected to a greater extent the position of social welfare recipients, particularly at a time when the partnership agreement is being renegotiated. While a majority of the income advocacy group proposed a formal linkage between social welfare rates and average earnings, a minority of the group comprising the Departments of Finance, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and IBEC opposed such a linkage on the grounds that the Government must have flexibility to consider the range of high priority demands on the Exchequer. No doubt the minority interests will win – they always win because they have many friends in Government. It is clear that the winners in this budget have been the minority of big business interests represented in the NAPS review rather than the majority who favour social justice. This puts in context the statements of the Taoiseach in the foreword to the review on NAPS which reads, "Building an inclusive society is the key priority of the Government for our country". He should not make such statements unless he intends to honour them.
There is also a commitment to poverty proofing in the revised NAPS report. This is something which caught my eye. It means that the policy proposals will be analysed to see how they affect the poor. I was very lucky to have training and a grounding in economics. The recent Budget Statement sets out the extent to which the Department of Finance applied the poverty proofing process to the budget. The Department is at best ambiguous and misleading in the way it reported this process. On the one hand, it asserts that the analysis of poverty proofing applies to the social welfare and income tax changes only but, on the other, it refers to tax changes in general rather than income tax only. It asserts that the analysis reflects the highly progressive nature of the budget which sees those dependent on social welfare benefits getting the greatest gain. The Department of Finance is applying smoky mirrors to the process of analysis. Income tax is almost always progressive. Indirect tax increases which characterise this budget, such as the 1% increase in VAT from 12.5% to 13.5%, excise duties and other charges, are highly regressive as they have much greater impact on the poor than on the rich. The impact of the budget on the poor can only be assessed by considering all the changes and adding up the gains and losses. It is the responsibility of the Department of Finance to analyse the impact of all tax changes on the poor and to report objectively and unambiguously on the outcome.
One of the biggest disappointments in the budget is the miserable way in which children are treated. Child benefit has been increased by €8, which the Minister lauded, bringing the level of benefit to €125.60 for the first and second child. Discounting this for the projected rate of inflation reduces the rate of increase to 54 cent a week, or 67 cent a week for families with three or more children, which by any standard is derisory. The treatment of families in this manner flies in the face of a statement made by the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, that child benefit has always been proved the most effective way to support children which does not contribute to work disincentives or poverty traps. She is correct and I applaud her for winning the argument. I was the eldest of ten children and I knew how important the first Tuesday of every month was to my mother. I never hid from that. I will always remember that the eldest child was worth just ten shillings and the second and third were worth much more. This is why I am committed to improving the lot of these people. I am not speaking on a personal but a collective level. The Minister is one of the more affable and genial people in the Government, and I wish her well. She has a tough fight because many people in Government disagree with her. If she needs help, Deputy Ring and I will be ready to sort out some of these hard right-wing ideologues with whom she must deal.
Hear, hear.
The Minister's views are shared by all those who work with children and families in poverty, including Barnardos, Children's Alliance and the Community Platform. If she believes in this principle, why will she not deliver on it by supporting poor children and families?
Every week in County Westmeath, Deputy McGrath and I meet parents on low incomes who obtained little benefit from the Celtic tiger. Their incomes may exclude them from eligibility for a medical card because the income limits have not been adjusted sufficiently. Notwithstanding the now discredited national health strategy where we lost 200,000 medical cards, these people may not be able to give their children the minimal medical care and their predicament has been exacerbated significantly by the injustice of inadequacies in the budget. One year ago, the Coalition Government promised a child benefit increase from €31 to €38 per month for each child. Such promises were made for crass electoral purposes and it was never intended that they would be fulfilled. Commenting today on the budget, a St. Vincent de Paul spokesperson said that the Minister for Finance is taking the money which should be paid in child benefit and putting it into roads. He said he is putting cars before kids. This reflects the widespread dismay throughout the country at the treatment being meted out to families in the budget.
How we treat children and look after disabled people are two of the measures that reflect a caring society. I see the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is present. He has missed me over the past five years, which really hurt me. I want the officials to note this point. The way carers in this society have been treated over the years is the greatest blot on our society. This is supposed to be a wealthy economy, even though people are working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, with little or no respite care or help. These people are subjected to the ignominy of a means test and are scaled back €10. Hours are spent investigating these people. It almost costs more to carry out these investigations than it would to pay people a few miserable shillings, which is a disgrace. I made it clear to the Labour Party that I would resign if it entered Government and did not abolish the means test. Deputy Wall can vouch that I said as much at a public meeting. That is what the issue means to me.
I will deliver it.
I know the Deputy would have a good shot at it. This is something none of us can take pride in because it is a blot on all of us. The Government extended the same miserable treatment in the budget to carers as it extends to other groups who need its support. There will be an increase of €7 per week for carers under the age of 66, including €19 per weekly income disregard, and €38 for a couple under the carer's allowance scheme, €150 income threshold per week for people receiving carer's benefit who want to engage in some level of employment.
There are approximately 100,000 carers throughout the country who provide loving care to dependants, yet fewer than 20,000 of them qualify for support from the State because of means testing and restrictions imposed by the relevant authorities. In some instances, these tests were more restrictive as a case successfully pursued through the ombudsman confirmed in 2001. This Government, as in the case of its immediate predecessor, the Fianna Fáil-PD Coalition, will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a more civilised Ireland in the 21st century. The Labour Party has a well thought out programme, caring for our carers. It includes the abolition of the means test for carers, linking carers payments to average earnings and a dramatic expansion of respite care. We will continue to advance and press for the implementation of our programme, even in the face of an uncaring and stingy Minister for Finance. We owe it to the people who have committed themselves to looking after others to give them the minimal back-up which they have a right to expect from a caring State. The carer's association said that the slave labour is alive and well after the budget. The Government failed to recognise thousands of family carers who provide 24 hour care for our most frail and disabled citizens in the home. Following the budget only an extra 1,000 family carers will receive some form of carer's allowance, which translates into a paltry one in ten of carers receiving an allowance. Carers continue to be exploited by the State because those in receipt of a full allowance earn just 77 cent per hour for their caring work in the home. This is about one ninth of the basic minimum wage. This nonsense should be stopped; we should tax the stallions and whatever else is necessary to ensure that carers are looked after. It is the most basic thing. The tax should be ring-fenced and provided as carer's allowance.
The Labour Party made clear this was fundamental. Many people sneered at my party's six pledges. However, if anyone goes back to read those pledges, this was one of them. There was no fear that the Labour Party would participate in any Government that would not look after carers, even if that meant putting up capital gains tax by 5% or 10% to look after the 100,000 people who are saving the State billions.
That is right.
They are not taking the money and putting it in some offshore account but are working night and day looking after people. They got no recognition in the budget. The Government should not tinker with this by slipping in a couple of shillings to fob people off with insulting amounts of money. Carers will send that money back. They are being put through the wringer.
It is time to straighten this matter out. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, has a lot of compassion. He knows the situation in this regard in his constituency. The Minister should do something with the means test. It is an indictment on the 166 Deputies that people get so little and it must be tackled.
The treatment of families, children and older people in our social welfare provision is not just an abstract matter to be discussed in the sheltered environment of Leinster House. It bears on the lives of ordinary people and, more particularly, on the poor and disadvantaged. A case was brought to my attention recently where a mother registered a child with the Department of Social and Family Affairs in May 2002 but will not get the six months arrears due on her lone parents book until January or early February 2003 because there is a six month backlog of cases in the Department. Members will understand what that means to a parent coming up to Christmas. It is serious and I hope the Minister's officials take note.
What could one say without cringing to an 85 year old woman in receipt of a diabetic allowance who Deputy Wall, a true Labour person in the spirit of Connolly and Larkin who looks out for the elderly and those on the margins, recently met? The elderly woman receives €11.10 per month. He got a phone call this morning to say that the allowance has been reduced because of means testing to €1.80 per month.
That is shocking.
The Minister of State will be shocked as someone who has come through the system and tried to reform it. That type of nonsense must stop. This is an 85 year old person living alone – I know this because Deputy Wall spoke to her today.
I received a copy of a letter from Deputy Wall written by a widow who is heavily dependent on child maintenance payments and who is trying to put one of her children through third level edu cation. She wrote that a widow's pension is €123.30 weekly and she receives €21.60 for her child. There has been no increase in dependent child allowance for nearly ten years. She receives child benefit until the child is 18 years. The €21.60 allowance continues while the child is in full-time education but the child benefit disappears after the age of 18. How is a widow and mother to send a child to university in these financial circumstances? In her letter, the woman says that her small Civil Service pension does not fully cover her weekly rent and that she is tired of depending on assistance from her family. She has health problems and wants to know who can help her. Deputy Ring is correct that it is people like this who must be helped. It is a hard thing for a woman or anybody to write a letter of that nature, or for Deputy Wall to bring a problem of that nature to us.
It gives me no pleasure to raise such serious matters. These are real life cases and not abstractions. Elected Deputies in contact with their constituents encounter them daily. Colleagues, including the Minister, meet such cases and the inadequacy of social provision can be illustrated with many similar cases. I gives me no pleasure to berate colleagues in this House for the conduct of our financial and social affairs. However, I must take the situation as I find it and I owe it to those who elected me to express my views in the most honest manner possible in the interests of all the people. It is important that inadequacies are tackled.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is a tremendous exponent of individualisation, aided by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney. As Deputy Paul McGrath rightly said, if the Government is so in favour of individualisation, the Department of Social and Family Affairs should extend it to the young people of 18 or 19 years of age living with their parents. They can get married, buy a house, attend third level or do what they like but the Department deems them dependants. The eligibility of such young people is calculated with reference to household income. That is the antithesis of individualisation. It is only good when it suits the Government with regard to the tax code, but when it refers to the social welfare code, the motto is: "You shall not pass."
Those young people are often forced out of home. They may get on a local authority list, but probably not if they are single.
What about rent allowance?
They go to the community welfare officer to seek rent allowance to pay well-off landlords. The Government would be better off to give to these people as it would save money anyway.
That is correct.
They would qualify in their own right once they seek rented accommodation in the community. It is crazy, as is the emasculation of the community employment schemes I spoke about last week and the effective abolition of the back to work scheme, which has 13,350 participants. In fairness to the Government, it was the three wise men who came up with this one. It is a pity a woman was not put in the middle of those men—
Or someone who is unemployed.
—because she would have tempered some of their wild excesses. They want to cut everything. The scheme played a major role in assisting people in the transition from long-term unemployment to work. A person now has to be five years out of work to qualify. A person who is five years unemployed needs other forms of assistance to re-enter the workforce. This is another crude and unwise cut and amounts to the effective abolition of the back to work allowance. It will now only be available to lone parents and certain categories in the area of disability.
I deplore dishonesty and cant in public life and, as with other colleagues in the House, think it outrageous that within a few months of a general election in which this Government promised the electorate decent services, good management of the public finances and good government – what could reasonably be described as the devil and all as is said down my way – we are presented with one of the most miserly social welfare budgets of recent memory. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs must know that her social welfare payments are among the lowest in the EU and not adequate to keep those dependent on them out of poverty.
The Minister owes it to this House to explain how she can stand over the payments that have been made to the poorest section of our community, for which she has special responsibility. She owes it to them to come up with more than statements sanctioned and sanitised by the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. A little honesty and contrition for social welfare provision in which she can take no pride would restore the credibility of her office.
I wish to share time with Deputies Crowe, Finian McGrath and Cowley, by agreement.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am disappointed the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has left the Chamber. I hope she had an important event to attend. Her promotion to the Cabinet was warranted. She must have been justifiably proud to have been given this portfolio with all its challenges. The Social Welfare Bill and the budget represents her first challenge as Minister in that Department. Unfortunately, she has not succeeded in that challenge. She has only succeeded in ensuring that the gap between those who have and have not in our society has grown less wide than it was during her predecessor's time in office.
The sixth successive budget introduced by the Minister for Finance has made the gap between those who have and have not in our society wider. The Conference of Religious of Ireland indicated that the five previous budgets increased the gap between those who depend on social welfare payments and those on €50,000 or more by €12,000 a year. The sixth budget has increased that gap by a further €25 a week, which is an additional €1,000. That shows that wealth is being distributed to the better off in our society. While that is not the intention of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the effect is marked and the Government must take responsibility.
The Government has disappointed people in almost every area of social welfare expenditure. The 5% or €6 increase in social welfare payments is eaten up by indirect tax increases, particularly the 1% increase in VAT. It is also eaten up by increases which were introduced as a result of changes in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. As regards housing, recipients of rent supplements must now pay €12.40 a week compared to €7.60, an increase of €4.80. That will be deducted from the €6 increase in the budget. Inflation and indirect taxes will also have an effect. The Government then dares to say that it protects the less well-off in our society. How dare it have the gall to suggest that it cares for the less well-off in our society. For six budgets in a row it has rubbed the faces of those who have least in our society further into the grind. It has created a two tier society and those at the bottom have been told to stay where they belong without any hope of redemption from a Government which is only interested in helping those who are better off and who are more willing and able to participate in the electoral process and to support the parties in Government. Shame on the Government if that is how it defends democratic values and treats our society in 2002.
The €500 million the Government boasts about giving to social welfare recipients is exceeded by the amount of money it is putting aside on an annual basis to give to those in the special savings investment scheme. That is a statement of the Government's priorities. It believes that the people who have the capacity to save in our society should be rewarded more than others. It wants to reward those with more funds to save more money. As the Green Party spokesperson on social welfare, I and my party do not wish to see the development of such a society.
The Government has sung its praises loudly in relation to child poverty. However, a press release today from St. Vincent de Paul in Limerick, which works in conjunction with Focus Ireland, Barnardos, the National Youth Council of Ireland, the Children's Rights Alliance and Pavee Point, which works with the Traveller community, stated that budget 2003 will seriously affect children, particularly those living in poverty. They have pulled their punches. The budget underlines the Government's philosophy for the past six years, namely, that we should reward those who have plenty in our society. If the Minister for Social and Family Affairs wants to get a grip on her Department and to improve the lot of those in our society who have less because of the Government's policies, she must do better.
The €8 increase in child benefit is a quarter of what was promised as a third year increase by the Government two years ago. It is another failed promised by a fraudulent Government. The increase in family income supplement, which helps those on the lowest incomes, is less than the current rate of inflation. That rate will increase as a result of changes in indirect taxation, particularly the 1% increase in VAT, introduced by the Minister for Finance. The back to school clothing and footwear allowance was not increased for children under 12 years of age, although costs are proportionately higher in that age bracket. A zero increase is like a cut, given the increasing rate of inflation. What is the logic for that?
Deputy Penrose mentioned carers. There is no doubt that we have adopted a cheap approach to social services. We have failed to give increases in line with the rate of inflation and to put in place a system for the cost of each person's care. The Government says it cares and that it provides for the citizens, when it does not.
The organisations I mentioned are not the only ones to say the budget is a failure. Other organisations, such as Threshold and the Conference of Religious of Ireland, have said that the gap has been identified and made worse by the Government. Those who depend on disability payments from the Department of Social and Family Affairs got nothing from the budget. They will have proportionately less because of the worsening rate of inflation as a result of measures introduced by the Government.
The Government may feel it is causing pain and misery in the first year of its term in office before the electoral cycle cranks up again. The Minister for Finance has promised two more budgets in a three year budgetary cycle which will introduce similar increases. I presume we will then see what we saw in the two years before the last general election. Public finances will be cranked up and a devil-may-care attitude will be adopted. A perception will be given that those who are least well off in our society will finally be given something back. However, what is more likely to happen is that those who already have plenty will be given proportionately more.
Ours is the most unequal society in Europe and the second most unequal among OECD nations after the United States of America, yet the Government benches are almost bare and its representative cannot even look a speaker in the face. That reflects the shame the Government should feel and the scandal of a sixth budget which insults an Ireland that has gone without because of policies which have unashamedly favoured the better off.
Last week, Fianna Fáil backbenchers, among them many of the so-called rebels, lined up to congratulate the Minister for Finance on the social welfare increases. They told him that their constituents would welcome the rise in their payments, but I have not found anyone in my constituency who agrees. It is beyond my comprehension that anybody could be expected to be grateful for these measures. On Saturday, I spoke to an unemployed couple with one child and was told that their increase in real terms was 25 cent, which is not much. I do not know of any clothing you could buy with it, in fact, you could not even get a spool of thread. Other speakers spoke of milk and bread, which this increase will not buy. It might pay for a tea bag, but you would still have to supply the milk and sugar. Perhaps those backbenchers who praised this budget can tell me what 25 cent can purchase.
A single unemployed person with one child will be worse off in 2003 as a result of this budget. While I am sure the Minister for Social and Family Affairs fought her corner in the run up to this budget, no one seems to be listening to her or to any of the groups tackling poverty, social exclusion and disadvantage. Last week's budget provides for paltry increases in social welfare payments which are wiped out when inflation is taken into account. These provisions come against a backdrop of savage cuts in community employment schemes, increases in VAT, stealth taxes on ATM cards, cutbacks in public services and the failure of the Government to take those on low incomes out of the tax net. Today it was revealed that the back-to-work allowance is to be refocused, as the Department puts it. We are supposed to be grateful that there were increases in social welfare rather than its elimination as suggested by the so-called three wise men. Like the original three wise men, they are looking at the stars and cannot see what is happening around them in their community.
The decision not to pay the child benefit increase despite the fact that a quarter of children live in poverty is perhaps the most shocking of the budget's provisions. We were told that the Government committed itself to a three-year implementation plan for child benefit increases and this year's provision was to be the third and final instalment. Faced with a choice, rather than deliver on this commitment the Minister chose to deliver on another part of his programme, the pledge to big business to cut corporation tax, sav ing it a few hundred million euro more. You can side with those who have money or those without and it is clear that the Government sided once again with the well off. The real increase in payments for children is €2.35 a month – less than 8 cent per day – despite the fact that the Combat Poverty Agency has repeatedly made the point that child benefit is the fairest way to support disadvantaged families.
The scandal is that many of these children will often have to go hungry and without decent clothes to schools which are run down, have inadequate heating and are housed in buildings in danger of collapsing. The waiting list for repairs is growing. This budget suggests that the Government believes it is normal for children to be schooled in what are obviously dangerous and unhealthy environments. The child benefit allowance has effectively been frozen since 1994, once increases in the cost of living are considered. The allowance is completely inadequate and despite an eight year old recommendation from the Commission on Social Welfare there are still three distinct rates. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House when we can expect these recommendations to be implemented as well as when the increases in child allowance will be made.
Another betrayal comes in the form of the increase in carer's allowance. In the run up to the last election there was unanimous agreement across the political divide that carers had been undervalued by successive Governments. There was a determination to do something about it. Many of us called for the abolition of the means test for carer's allowance, but the Government has seen fit only to increase slightly the amount of money provided. In this debate, it is key to bear in mind the utter baloney that the money was not available. It was available to cut corporation tax to the lowest rate in Europe at a cost of €305 million.
This State has one of the highest per capita income levels in the EU and one of its worst levels of infrastructure and service provision. In its pre-budget submission, Sinn Féin proposed a new tax rate of 50% for very high earners, a capital gains tax of 40% and a freezing of corporation tax. We suggested that people be allowed to back out of the SSIA schemes without penalty and pledged to get rid of tax breaks and loopholes. If this Government had wanted to tackle poverty, to invest in education and to address the largest issue in politics, rampant inequality in society, the money was there. The political will, however, was not. It would have meant taking on the Government's financial backers and forcing corporate Ireland to pay its fair share. The Minister for Finance was clearly not prepared to move away from rewarding the rich to supporting the less well off.
Since 1997, long-term unemployed couples are €72 better off while a couple earning €50,000 is €271 a week better off. The latter couple is also more likely to have benefited even further by investing in the special savings scheme set up by this Government. These are the facts behind the last six budgets and this year we have seen another chapter in the ongoing failure of this Government to take every worker on the minimum wage out of the tax net. The Minister claims this budget takes those earning 90% of the minimum wage out of the tax net, which is what he said on 5 December 2001. Last year he told the House that the tax changes he was introducing then meant that those on 90% of the minimum wage were out of the tax net. Is this political groundhog day? In each of the coming years can we expect Deputy McCreevy, having learned nothing from his previous year, to stand before us looking again and again for plaudits for this big break for minimum wage earners?
It is the low paid and the unpaid that I represent and over the weekend I heard their anger and hurt at the sad, pathetic social welfare increases in this budget. Many of the cutbacks outlined in the budget will result in a reduced level of health care, education and public services which will affect those who are already poor or are experiencing social exclusion. This budget expects the poor to bear the burden of Government mismanagement of the unprecedented resources which were available during the boom years. It will perpetuate inequality and leave thousands of families trapped in poverty. The budget is littered with broken promises and it leaves the less well off poorer than they were before.
A mark of a just and fair society is how it treats its most needy and vulnerable citizens, but those who expected this budget to reflect that were sorely disappointed. It is a gross understatement to say that its provisions have let the weaker members of our society down. The Social Welfare Bill is of dubious benefit to those who need our help most of all. The measly €6 increase in social welfare will be negatived completely by inflation and the increase in the lower rate of VAT and considering that it will be spent on basics like coal, gas and electricity, it will not go very far. Those who receive social welfare will pay increased ATM charges when they draw cash from the benefit owed to them. It is a case of a two handed Government – it gives with one hand and takes away with the other. This is par for the course for previous Governments in recent years, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The community platform, CORI and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, were all of one mind. Despite their pleas nothing has changed. In fact the €130 minimum welfare payment threshold recommended was ignored. So much for fair play for the less well-off. It was all gobbled up by the better off. The increase of €6 will be further eroded by the increased accommodation costs arising from cutbacks in the rent allowance.
How about the magnificent carers of Ireland who got a miserly increase of €7? This is a small increase especially when the carers had to go through so much to get the allowance in the first place. The conditions for eligibility are strict. The carers do magnificent work day in day out, seven days a week, year after year. If those carers were to refuse to do that work the State could not even cope not to mention paying for it. These wonderful people were ignored in the budget.
While disability and unemployment benefit has increased by €6, many more are driven on to the dole by the Government's policy of forcing people off community employment schemes. Nobody denies the magnificent work done through the community employment scheme in every community, the clean up and essential services provided in schools which are cash starved. Those who had been engaged in that work will be demoralised by going into the ranks of the unemployed. Would it not have been better to preserve people's dignity by allowing those schemes to continue? It was stated that the justification for those schemes was that the unemployment rate was going down. This is not a justification as the number of unemployed is increasing.
What about the older folk? It is true they will receive an increase of €10 but after inflation and rent allowance changes they will get very little. On the question of allowing older people remain in their own community, this is a missed opportunity of magnanimous proportions. There are 2,000 units for older people in Ireland yet 2,000 older people are languishing on the local authority housing list waiting for the opportunity to remain in their own area but who are forced into nursing homes. The slowdown in social housing could have been corrected by the introduction of the defined revenue funding scheme. This would have been about one tenth of the cost of the €70 million used to keep the elderly in nursing homes. They would have been much better off had they been allowed remain in their own communities.
There was no vision in this budget and more is the pity. Young and old will suffer and we will become even more a society of the haves and the have nots. That is regrettable as this budget is another lost opportunity to create a more just and equitable society.
I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the Social Welfare Bill. It is essential that we all examine this legislation carefully and decide how we distribute finance to the most needy in society. Sadly, we seem to be moving away from the idea of society and the words "social" and "welfare" sound hollow indeed.
Last week, in the budget, we saw how our society is going. We will now have a situation where an unemployed person with one child will be 25 cent per week better off in real terms than in 2002. The poverty gap between a single unemployed person and a person on €50,000 per year will widen by more than €25 per week. The number of people living in relative poverty will continue to rise. On top of this there will be a substantial loss of essential services in local communities which were delivered up to now by community employment schemes. This is not the kind of country in which I wish to live. This is not social and above all it has nothing to do with the welfare of our people. Hence, I will vote against the Bill.
The Bill provides for increases in the rates of social insurance and social assistance payments and improvements in the family income supplement scheme. Sections 2 and 3 provide for increases in rates of social welfare payments, including the increase of €10 per week for pensioners aged 66 and over and for people on retirement and invalidity pension aged 65 and over. This increase is too low. These people have worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes and gave great service to the State and their community and will now receive €10 which is worth about three pints or two packets of cigarettes. This is not good enough and, above all, it is not fair.
Section 4 provides for increases in the weekly net income thresholds used to determine entitlement to family income supplement. The new thresholds range from €379 in the case of a family with one child to €556 in the case of a family with eight or more children. The rates of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, injury benefit, health and safety benefit are being increased by €6 to €124.80 per week. This is not good enough and, above all, it is an injustice to the less well-off in society. The weekly rates of widow's and widower's pensions are being increased by €7. This is the equivalent of about two drinks or a packet of cigarettes. This increase shows where our priorities lie. The disablement pension is being increased by €7. I ask the Minister if she would be able to live on those increases. That is €130.30 to survive in 2002. Most Ministers and senior Deputies would spend that amount on a meal out in one night, yet we expect it to last widows for seven days. That is not on and it is unacceptable. It is time for the Government to come into the real world and to stop hiding behind its minders and spin doctors. Given inflation, these increases are a joke.
The personal rate of the carer's allowance has been increased by €7 to €129.60 per week. These people save the Exchequer at least €300 per week, yet the State offers them €7. Any private nursing home costs between €400 and €500 per week. That is the reality and that is the real world. These injustices have got to be highlighted and the real percentages have to be made clear. Our people, our elderly, our carers have got to have a voice both in the Dáil and in the wider community. Any Dáil that does not look after its carers and elderly loses the respect of its people. Any Government that does not respect its elderly loses its heart and it goes out of business. This Social Welfare Bill should be about helping people, giving them a leg up, not turning our backs on them. This Bill should be about radical change.
We have got to challenge the negative attitudes to ageing and older people and to promote greater participation by older people in society. A person over 65 has to be valued and looked after. If we can make them financially independent we all win – the people win, the country wins and the voluntary community groups up and down the country win. It is a good investment and it is money well spent. Society gains if we value, care for and provide proper welfare payments. This is the direction in which the Bill should be going. However, it is a missed opportunity. We could give people the final leg up to prevent poverty and exclusion in society. The Bill will be passed because the Government has the required numbers. However, I urge the Minister to think again and to provide a decent increase, then we would all win.
I wish to share time with Deputy Carey.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Bill and welcome the Minister. She is a Minister whose work I greatly admire. I have the opportunity to work with her not only in the parliamentary party but on the joint committee. In the post-budget frenzy of comments some Members have made a great deal of the status of the disadvantaged and the poor sections of the community. As usual they have engaged in negative comments without offering any alternatives.
It would be easy for me to throw out the old chestnut and compare how the rainbow Government lived up to its commitments to the disadvantaged and how it looked after old age pensioners during its time in office.
That is the spin doctors at it again. Who wrote the speech for the Deputy?
I am not spun by anybody. As the Deputy knows, it is my own work. This budget has continued, within the constraints of the current economic climate, to give recipients of social welfare the best possible support. My party colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, has made it her priority to protect and safeguard social welfare payments. Despite the increasing pressures on the economy, this Government is delivering.
The sacrifices and hard work of pensioners and previous generations, on whose shoulders the ongoing development and prosperity of this coun try has been built, more than justify the Government's commitment to raise the pension to €200 during its lifetime. I support the Minister who will ensure that the increase for next year will bring the pension rate closer to that target.
The changes in the disregard for rent mortgage interest supplement and the increase in weekly rent supplement limits will serve to alleviate the conditions of the pensioners affected. The widening of the telephone allowance for all pensioners under the age of 70 in receipt of a social welfare payment, and to pensioners over 70 years of age in nursing homes with their own telephone account, demonstrates that this Minister and her officials are aware of the practicalities of a pensioner's life and will bring forward solutions. The extension of free schemes to under 70 year olds, with limited conditions, is also welcome.
I have a specific interest in the issue of carers as I have had personal experience in that regard. The Minister and her officials have recognised the central role carers have in providing first rate care. The increase in the respite care grant, coupled with the weekly increase, demonstrates the Government's support for this valuable personal service.
I represent the Tallaght area in Dublin South-West. For many years we have talked a lot about unemployment. Over the last 12 years, since the opening of the Square in 1990, Tallaght has become a different place. Unemployment is no longer the problem it was and people in my constituency are finding employment. Despite that we have a first class social welfare service in Tallaght which delivers excellent services to people. The level of unemployment has dropped significantly over the years and has not risen sharply to date. I urge the Minister to continue her policy of support for the long-term unemployed, through both payment rates and training and support activities whether personal development or literacy courses organised by FÁS.
The Government has used child benefit as an effective way to support children in a way that is not a disincentive to work or a poverty trap and there has been a significant increase in child benefit payments. While the increase this year has been smaller than previous years I welcome the Minister for Finance's commitment to catch up with our child benefit commitments in the budgets of 2004 and 2005. Two thirds of the promised increases have already been delivered. Child benefit is now €125.60 for the first child, a change from the previous benefit of €38.09. My constituency of Dublin South-West covers the large estates of Tallaght as well as the areas of Templeogue, Firhouse and Greenhills and people talk to me and give me their reactions. In these areas there are few homes where there are not recipients of a social welfare scheme.
While I have only commented on some aspects of this Bill I support the Minister and her officials who on a daily basis deliver services to an ever demanding customer base. Notwithstanding the exceptions there will always be when dealing with such a large and diverse base, I am not afraid to say they deliver the services in an efficient and effective manner.
I have said before that being a Deputy on the Government benches can be demanding. However, it does not stop me from honouring my commitments to my constituents. It is now 207 days since I was elected. The people of Tallaght sent me here to do a job and being on the Government benches does not prevent me from doing that or prevent me from listening to my constituents. I listen to them on the phone, in the streets and in my seven weekly advice clinics. I can still come in and bring their concerns to the attention of the Ministers and the Dáil. I will continue to do that.
A debate on a Bill such as this gives us all an opportunity to voice our concerns. We have a Minister who is listening and who is prepared to take action and I wish her well. I hope she takes the opportunity to piece together all the contributions and that she ensures her Department continues to provide a first class service for people in need. I commend the Bill to the House.
A measure of any Government's commitment to social justice, to eliminating social exclusion and to promoting social solidarity and burden sharing is the way it looks after those least well able to look after themselves. By any measure, a Government, which in difficult circumstances is able to devote a budget day package of €530 million to social welfare, is clearly committed to those less able to look after themselves. That amount is one of the largest made available for social welfare in recent years. I commend the Government and the Minister for that commitment.
There are still people in relative poverty in our constituencies and we need to support them. I welcome the increase of €10 per week for old age pensioners. It builds on the progress we have already made. The increases focus on specific target areas in terms of social welfare recipients. Old age pensioners have received good increases over the last number of years which is only what they deserve. We would like to be able to give more. As Deputy O'Connor said they have built the country to what it is. I also welcome the extra €11 per week for widows and widowers over 66 years of age. I know the Minister has a particular interest in that group of people. Recently, I heard her say that widows and widowers under 66 years of age also need attention.
I have heard some entertaining back-of-the-lorry comments from my colleagues on the other side of the House.
I am glad I have provoked them out of their evening slumber. Since they quoted selectively from the CORI analysis of the budget, I will quote equally selectively from the same document on the initiatives which CORI welcomed. The promised levy on financial institutions which have benefited inordinately from the reduction in corporation tax in recent years will realise €300 million. The promised disbursement of funds from the dormant accounts fund to charitable and community projects will have a particular focus on children with learning disability. Other initiatives which have been welcomed include the move to close tax loopholes which were created by the rainbow Government, the proposed introduction of a carbon energy tax from the end of 2004 and the increased excise duty on alcopops, to which Deputy Ring will possibly object also.
More promises.
Order please. Deputy Carey without interruption.
There are areas towards which initiatives are appropriately targeted. The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance is an important support to many parents. It has been increased by €30 to €150 for children aged 12 years and over. There are other initiatives in the education area to assist children of all age groups. The capitation grant to primary and post primary schools is at an unprecedented high level.
(Interruptions).
Order, please.
I will mention one further matter for Deputy Ring's benefit. There was an anomaly in last year's Social Welfare Act, which I humbly claim to have brought to the Minister's attention, whereby people were excluded from schemes formerly available to them. I am pleased to note that the free schemes are now to be extended to pensioners under the age of 70 in receipt of a qualifying payment and whose spouse or partner is in receipt of a social welfare payment in their own right where the total income of the spouse and partner is less than €203.16 per week. That will come into operation from January. Many others had ignored that anomaly and I am glad the Minister has addressed that concern for an estimated 2,500 people. That measure is very similar to one we introduced in a previous budget in relation to pre-1953 pensions.
That is taxpayers' money, not the Government's.
Deputy Ring does not like to be reminded of matters affecting many people whom his party ignored for years.
I also fought for those issues.
Order, please.
Perhaps Deputy Ring is referring to some pre-1927 issue.
That is the Deputy's era.
I also compliment the Minister on the excellent work of the money advice and budgeting service, MABS, which has been a tremendous initiative by the Department of Social and Family Affairs through the health boards. I am glad the Minister has secured additional funding of €960,000 for that service. I hope it will be used to continue the pilot project of regional development offices for MABS, which has enabled local groups such as citizens advice bureaux, Society of St. Vincent de Paul and local offices of the Department of Social and Family Affairs to be more effective. In the eastern region, the officer seconded from MABS in my local area is dealing with 19 other—
(Interruptions).
Order, please.
I hope we will have all party support—
A lot done, more to do.
It was announced in the Budget Statement—
More promises.
Comhairle has also done great work. Although some Members may not welcome it, the provision of impartial, objective advice and information to our constituents is a great step forward. We should continue to promote services such as those provided by Comhairle. I partially welcome the initiative in relation to the child dependant allowance. The Minister is aware of my views in this regard. I know there was a policy decision in 1994 that this allowance would not be increased because, at that time, it was seen as a disincentive to work. I have discussed the matter with previous Ministers who tried to explain that reasoning. I suggest that the Minister could usefully look at the situation of people with long-term disability who will never be available for work. They should be considered for inclusion in the child dependant allowance category.
The back-to-work allowance has been a very useful initiative, although it may have run its course in certain areas. When it was introduced in my area, unemployment was close to 10% but it is now down to around 1.7% and I realise there are good reasons for reviewing the scheme. However, there is a category of applicants who still need the cushioning effect of the back-to-work allowance. I refer to those on the enterprise allowance. It may be reasonable to argue that a person who has been long-term unemployed and secures a full-time job might be able to cope with the loss of social welfare payment. However, a person starting up his or her own business will not have a cheque at the end of the first week and may not have any income for quite some time. The proposed change would leave such people in a vulnerable situation. In my local partnership area, some 80 small time entrepreneurs – unemployed people – were assisted to set up in business in 2002. Perhaps the Minister will have another look at that aspect of the scheme if she is in a position to review it.
Overall, the Minister has introduced a balanced series of measures. It is a targeted package which is focused on the most vulnerable people. I would prefer to see 100% of the minimum wage free of tax rather than 90%. However, we are moving a substantial distance in the right direction. I hope other measures such as child benefit allowances will be improved in due course. I compliment the Minister on her work and I support the Bill.
This has been an interesting debate. I find it difficult to understand how anybody can welcome a budget which puts €6 into the pocket of a lone parent one day only to take away €4.80 the next day. That net increase of €1.20 is before inflation at 6% is taken into account. CORI has welcomed some few items. However, the heading on its statement very clearly describes the budget as unfair, unjust and unacceptable. I welcome the Minister to her portfolio and I am glad she has taken it. This is the first time I have spoken in this context other than on Question Time. I have worked closely with her on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and elsewhere and I have heard her laugh and enjoy life. I have no doubt there is a soft and pleasant side to her but—
I thank the Deputy very much. Is he single? I will not be able to sleep tonight thinking about him.
—this budget does not show that. I welcome the officials to the House. The majority of those involved in the social welfare service give an excellent service throughout the country. In the past few months they have been the victims of pressure exerted on them to cut back and save money which is sad because many of them are helpful. We have a costly jail system. The vast majority of those in jail have been socially excluded. Such are the people we are talking about tonight, those who suffer as a result of low-income, poor structures, lack of remedial education and poor quality schools. Government is about improving those.
I make no apology, because of my background, for referring to some of the schemes that affect the farming sector. I look with interest at the figures in last year's budget which claimed 2,500 extra families would be in receipt of family income supplement, while only 400 extra actually received it. Family income supplement should be available to anyone on low income whether they are shopkeepers or self-employed because they are not covered by any other scheme. Farming people have farm assist which came about as the result of 40,000 farmers marching on the streets of Dublin. The IFA, an organisation in which I spent much time and have much time for, swallowed the Government message that instead of family income supplement farm families would get special treatment and that 40,000 of them would be on farm assist in no time. About 7,500 were on small farm incomes then and today we have 8,500 on farm assist. Some widows and people on disability opted for farm assist because the allowances were slightly better. There is no comparison between the income someone can have on farm assist and someone who is self-employed and can get family income supplement. There is no incentive to do anything on the small farm if one is being paid farm assist.
How much money was spent on the promotion of the farm assist scheme to people who were entitled to it this autumn? The Minister accepts that a number of farmers came through a desperate period and needed assistance but the records show that they did not take it up. That may have had to do with advertising but the Minister looked well in the papers—
I always knew the Deputy fancied me.
He knows a good looking woman.
We will make headlines in the newspapers tonight.
It did not deliver the goods to the farmers and that is what counts. The small farmers did not benefit from the scheme because they were afraid to apply. I was told by a family which is on €47 per week that they are afraid to look for any more in case they lose it. They know what their income is and they can produce figures but the last time they met with the social welfare officials they decided to leave well enough alone. That must be examined.
My party put forward a proposal that family income supplement should be available to everyone. I know the Government does not trust accountants and that is why it will not accept audited accounts. I clearly remember when audited accounts came in for farmers and the then Minister said we did not need to produce audited accounts to know the figures. We all know what the then Taoiseach thought about accounts. Accounts from small farmers or business people should be trusted and nobody should lose out as a result of the lack of trust.
I listened with interest to the talk of full employment and there not being a need for the back-to-work scheme anymore. When the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat coalition took over in 1997 some 1,000 jobs per week were created by the previous Government. That brought about low unemployment. The present Government has brought about a situation where 500 jobs per week are being lost. We are in a different economic climate yet we are doing away with the back-to-work allowance. Someone has to be on unemployment benefit for five years in order to be eligible. The Minister, quite rightly in some cases, is sending her officials to make sure that someone who is on it for a few weeks is taken off unless they can prove they are looking for a job. Some people are unemployable and that must be taken into account. People should not be left on the scrap heap. They should be given some encouragement. On the other hand, 5,000 CE schemes are being taken away so there is less opportunity for people to get work.
A person on disability benefit doing 12 hours per week proper employment with which he could cope was recently told he should go back to work full time and was removed completely because he was making some effort. Where is the fair play in that? Some 5,000 people are being taken off CE schemes and 5,000 more will be taken from the Civil Service. That must be addressed.
At a political meeting recently, a colleague said we had two budgets and I said that, since it got back into power, the Government has a budget every week and that it might soon have one every day. At that stage, I did not realise there actually was a budget every day because I awoke the next morning to the news that car tax was increased by 12%. If one is on social welfare living in rural Ireland one needs a car. If one is under 66 and a widow or widower one might need a car to bring children to school or work. People who received an increase of only €6 have to pay a 12% increase in car tax and a 35% increase in insurance along with increased food prices. The sum of €6 is an insult to those sort of people.
Debate adjourned.