Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 2002

Vol. 559 No. 2

Social Welfare Bill, 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Earlier I complimented the Minister on the disregarding of the first €420 for a couple in the means test for a carer's allowance. It is a positive move that will mean that more people will qualify for the allowance, thus maintaining more people in their own homes for as long as possible. This is one of my pet subjects and I feel that every help should be given to people to stay in their own homes. I have nothing against nursing homes but older people like to stay in their own homes and I hope this will continue to be Government policy.

The respite grant has been increased to €735. This is a help for carers because it will give them a break from caring. Also, the hearing aid grant has increased by €350 to €700. All of this proves that the Minister cares and that this budget has protected the weaker sections of society. I commend the Bill to the House.

I was amazed to hear some of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers praising the Minister. It is great to see her smile – she has a beautiful smile – but she will not be smiling when Deputy Naughten and I have finished with her.

Deputy Naughten had his chance many years ago.

I was surprised to hear Fianna Fáil Deputies praising her earlier because she has made a shambles of social welfare. Every newspaper I looked at last weekend – the Sunday Independent, the Sunday World and The Sunday Tribune– contained an advertisement for the PPS number.

Was it on page three?

I have not seen the Minister on page three yet but I am waiting for that. A total of €19.5 million was spent advertising the PPS number.

That is an exaggeration.

That is the amount spent on advertising social welfare in the past two years.

Page three is expensive.

If that money had been spent in an area that required €19.5 million, there would be many happy faces in the run up to Christmas.

Many people in Wexford depend on the carer's allowance and the amount given last weekend will not help them. These people look after the elderly in their own homes but the increase granted to them, once inflation is taken into account, is very disappointing. The huge number of carers were not recognised. I wonder if this Government has ever noticed them.

This budget is anti-social welfare recipient. It shows who this Government looks after. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I tried to stand up for the Minister in my clinic on Saturday. I told people she is a lovely lady but they did not listen to me. Increases in social welfare payments of between €6 and €10, with inflation running at 5% and food prices spiralling out of control, are an attack on the most vulnerable. There was also a 1% increase in VAT, alongside increases in ESB prices, the cost of heating oil and other necessities those on social welfare require.

The changes to the back-to-work scheme are the greatest load of codswallop I have ever heard. I have never seen such rulings. A person must be out of work for five years now to qualify for the scheme as opposed to the previous 15 months. We are supposed to be encouraging people back into work. I hope those people beside the Minister are not her spin doctors because I would get rid of them fairly quickly. She is being led up the garden path. She should go back to the Department after this debate and ask them to go back to the original rule.

I looked at the report published by CORI before I came to the House. It is not a happy organisation. It is disgusting to see an unemployed couple with one child being 25 cent better off. If I gave 25 cent to a child going into a shop he or she would throw it back at me. If I saw a man in the street with a plastic cup in his hand, I would give him 25 cent because it is only loose change.

The Minister has had her fair share of cutbacks in the recent past. The rent supplement was increased by only €6, when rents are getting out of control. A lady came to my clinic on Saturday and the cheapest one bedroom apartment she could find cost €135 per week. I went to look at it and it was in appalling condition. I would not have allowed a dog live in it. The Minister would not accept that an unmarried mother could go into it with a three month old baby. She had to leave her house because her parents had a big enough family without keeping the unmarried girl in the family home. I was disappointed to see this happening.

I would like the Minister to get her house in order. Widowers under the age of 66 should have got the same increase as other widowers. I welcome the €11 increase but these people have only been awarded a €7 increase. Widowers are being badly treated by the State and I hope the Minister does something about it. A widow or widower should be allowed to retain the free schemes that applied to his or her spouse before his or her death. People under 60 should be allowed this for a year or two.

I have mentioned the carer's allowance and the national fuel allowance. I was disappointed there was no change in the national fuel scheme this year, particularly with the bad weather. The amount of money people get from the scheme is tiny. Elderly people should be well looked after. The Minister got a roasting in the past week over what was done with social welfare in the budget. I know she does not need heat in her home because the roasting she got in the House and from her constituents is enough. Deputy Ring has given the Minister a fair roasting in the past couple of days and will continue to do that.

I have a lot of heat from my own people to keep me warm.

The Minister is not looking after them.

It was not from the fuel allowance.

Elderly people need a few euro extra on the fuel allowance to keep them warm on winter nights. The Minister knows how cold it is. It is all right for her as she hops into her ministerial car, turns up the heaters, lets back the seat and goes asleep. She will be fine in her sheepskin coat but what of those with no central heating, with the wind blowing under their doors and their windows falling out because the council and the health boards will not give them money for repairs?

It is shameful.

Shameful is not the word for it. I have talked about the rent subsidy and turn now to the Christmas bonuses. A husband and wife visited my clinic in Gorey last Friday. The man told me they will not get a Christmas bonus. When the Minister was a little girl waiting on Santa to come – it might have been a while ago – she looked forward to what he was going to bring her. Because this couple will not get a Christmas bonus, the man told me that Santa might not be able to come to his house.

It will not be the fire that is keeping him away.

The Minister should think about that. Another man visited my clinic a while ago.

That is a lot of clinics.

I have a lot of clinics, like Deputy Ring. The man told me he had been claiming social welfare previously and then had to try to get his allowance back. He had to get seven letters stating that he was looking for work. I wrote to the local social welfare office to try to get his allowance back. There were so many letters involved between those I wrote and those he received that he could have had three or four weeks' social welfare payments before he was finished.

The Minister should look back at what she did in last week's budget. She should go back, make the right decisions and look after the most vulnerable people, those on social welfare.

Deputy Kehoe is a hard act to follow. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. There is no doubt that this Bill, with the budget introduced last week by the Minister for Finance, is another round of the stealth cuts we have seen. These cuts hurt the old, sick and handicapped. The cutbacks this year and in the Estimates for 2003 can be seen in the lack of resources for the physically and mentally disabled. There is a lack of resources in the health service where cutbacks have taken place over recent months and now the Minister for Social and Family Affairs is bringing forward this legislation.

Deputy Kehoe made the important point that €19.5 million has been spent on public relations for the PPS number. That works out at several million euro per number. Money is being squandered but measly funds are provided in the Bill before us. An example is the carer's allowance which Deputy Callanan spoke about. The paltry increase of €7 will not even keep it in line with inflation when the rate of 4.5% is taken into account for the current year and 6% next year, as was admitted by the Minister for Finance this week.

What is the excuse for the paltry increase in the rate of social welfare? It is the economy, stupid. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs or the Minister for Finance should explain what is wrong with the Irish economy, which is growing at 3.3%. What is wrong with the European economy which is growing at about half that? What is wrong with the US economy which is also growing, if perhaps at a slower rate than in the past? All three major economies this country relies on are expanding yet we hear the traditional tripe from the Government that the economy is the reason for the stealth cutbacks. The economy is growing; the problem is that this Government cannot manage the money being taken in and the money being spent. Because of that, the most vulnerable in society will have to pay dearly for this legislation.

Rent are being hiked up across the country. As Deputy Kehoe said, there is accommodation offered that would not house pigs, never mind human beings, yet it is rented for €135 per week. Despite that, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has increased the threshold at which the rent allowance kicks in.

On top of the additional charges and the hikes in rent, a further hike has been put in place. The Minister for Finance increased the rate of VAT which increases the cost of telephones, electricity and heat, whether oil, coal or briquettes, yet the Minister for Social and Family Affairs gave not one cent in the fuel allowance to compensate for the hike in the VAT rate. Again, it is the most vulnerable in society that are subventing this budget and Government. They are losing out with regard to the Bill before us and due to the policies of this Government.

The cutbacks that have taken place to date will impact on a typical household in 2003 to the tune of €1,787. The average household will be that much worse off because of the budget and the cutbacks since this Government was returned to office. It is well known that the rate of inflation is increasing dramatically and that makes people poorer. What has the Government done to address that? Children's allowance has been increased in real terms by 54 cent per week, which will not succeed in cancelling out the 1% increase in the VAT rate. Children are worth 54 cent to this Government. The failure to increase child dependent allowance is another example of the actions of a Government which claimed it would support young families. At the other end of the scale is the dependent allowance for those over 80 years which has not been increased by even one cent above the rate for those between 65 and 80. It is another example of a stealth cut by this Government. It has clawed back money from the most vulnerable in society, many of whom do not cast their votes and, therefore, do not register the hatred they feel toward the policies of this Government over the past five years.

Over the coming year, many more people will be forced to call on the expertise of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service. The difficulty a great number have in surviving is something I am sure the Minister sees in her own constituency. Many are forced to borrow, especially at Christmas, as Deputy Keogh said, if they want to see Santa Claus. Despite the fact that these people will have to turn to MABS next year, the Minister has cut its budget by 8%, or 12% in real terms regarding the level of service provided in the past.

With this budget, the single person who is long-term unemployed is €6 per week better off while those earning €25,000 are €23 better off. A person earning €50,000 per year will be €32 better off thanks to this Government. These trends are repeated regarding couples with a single earner, couples who are long-term unemployed and couples with double incomes. The differential increases every time and those who have benefited most over the past five years of Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats budgets have been the best off. High income earners are the ones to benefit most when the Minister knows as well as I do that most of them could not give a damn about being a few euro a week better off. For someone on the minimum wage or a social welfare payment those extra few euro could have a significant impact on their quality of life. It is a damning indictment of the policies of this Government over the past five years. Sadly, the Minister for Finance has repeated the same measures in this budget. I feel sorry for the Minister for Social and Family Affairs who must try to defend this while doling out the usual tripe that social welfare recipients are better off. Telling a family that they are better off regarding children's allowance by 54 cent per week, typifies the meanness of this Government.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Dennehy.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is a privilege and an honour for me to make my maiden speech in the House this evening. Fianna Fáil strives for a society in which all citizens receive an equal opportunity to realise their full potential. Our aim is an Ireland in which gender, race, creed and economic and social background are not barriers to advancement. That is what moulds our social policy, that is our guiding principle. It is a vision which has shaped the party's policies in Government. Our republican beliefs are based on two fundamental principles in respect of the relationship between Government and society and the citizen. Unlike the Thatcher-style conservatives, we believe in society and community. People are not simply self-interested individuals which is why Government must play a role in ensuring the welfare of all in society. That is the reason I joined Fianna Fáil. It is the reason I stood for Mayo County Council in 1999 and the reason I am proud to represent the people of Mayo to whom I am grateful for affording me the opportunity to stand here.

We have achieved a great deal. Fianna Fáil is committed to balancing the welfare of society and the rights of families and individuals. Each of our budgets has been characterised by measures which were designed to improve the circumstances of the most vulnerable. As a democratic society, we have a responsibility to care for older people, children and others who are in need of support. With that in mind, the social welfare improvements in this year's budget were costed at €530 million. The figure stands in stark comparison to the €273 million provided under the rainbow coalition's last budget in 1997.

I am particularly delighted that the Ministers for Finance and Social and Family Affairs safeguarded social welfare payments in the budget for the coming year. It is fitting that the generation that worked so hard to build a strong economy is being given priority with the significant boosting of pension rates. To continue our commitment to older people and maintain our record of putting older people first to ensure they live a life of dignity, we have increased the old age pension by 59% during our term of office. The increase of €10 per week in this budget puts us well on the way to meeting our election promise to bring the State pension to €200 per week. I am sure this Government will deliver on that commitment. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs was conscious of the hardship experienced by widows and widowers in terms of contributory pensions for those aged over 66 years when she sanctioned an increase of €11 in their weekly pensions. It was correct of the Minister to increase the deserted wives benefit for those aged 66 and over by the same amount and to increase invalidity pensions for those under 65 by €7 per week.

Once again this Fianna Fáil led Government has proved its commitment to the family, recognising it as the core of society. Despite the troubled economic environment, this budget has provided further increases in child benefit. It will be increased by €8 per month for the first and second child and by €10 for the third and subsequent children. In other words, parents will receive €125 for each of the first two children every month and €157.30 for the third and subsequent children. When we returned to Government in June 1997, child benefit was payable at a measly rate of €38.09 per month for the first and second children and at €49.52 for the third and subsequent children. The prioritising of the family by the Fianna Fáil Government cannot be denied. It has ensured that child benefit payments actually make a difference in contributing to the expenses of every parent. Child benefit is an essential support for families with dependent children. It takes the sting out of child care costs and contributes to food and clothing bills. It is a key instrument for tackling child poverty. This universal payment, essential to assist parents to support their children without being stigmatised, has proved to be the most successful method of supporting children without contributing to work disinterest or poverty traps.

In budget 2001, the Government announced its intention to allocate a staggering €1.27 billion in increased child benefit and we have achieved over two thirds of the objective already. As a result, Fianna Fáil has more than trebled the payment rates. We also introduced a range of other social welfare improvements including a further easing of the home income disregard for carer's allowance to benefit 3,400 new carers and 2,300 existing ones. The increase in the annual respite care grant brings the payment to €500 and there has been a 20% increase in the number of free units granted under the free electricity allowance. There has been a relaxation in the qualification criteria for the free telephone allowance. The free travel companion pass has been extended to invalidity pensioners. The income threshold for family income supplement has been increased to bring the average payment to recipients up to around €59 per week and the earnings disregard for recipients of disability allowance has been increased.

Continuing to invest in health and education is central to this Government's policy even during a global economic downturn. We will press ahead with the infrastructure which is so badly needed. All of this will be done without being reckless with taxpayers' money and without spending more than we can afford. Fairness and prudence are at the heart of this budget. I congratulate the Minister on her first budget in the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

I join my colleague in complimenting the Minister. It is her first budget in the ministry and she is certainly in touch with those she represents and has displayed that already. Much of the criticism directed at her today, and many of the figures trotted out, came directly from the well-produced budget analysis by CORI. While it has been used extensively I am surprised nobody has quoted from page three of its analysis. The whole premise of the argument is set out in the third item in that page which states clearly, in a banner headline, "Ireland is a too low tax economy". It has been denied by the Opposition but this reinforces the fact that Ireland has evolved into a low tax economy. Latest figures from the OECD confirm that the Irish Government now gathers a lower proportion of gross domestic product in tax than any other European country. Indeed, across the 30 OECD countries it is the third lowest. It quotes Michael L. Collins, an expert on the economy, who stated in an article that it is highly unlikely that any significant impact would arise for the economy if the tax burden was slightly increased above its current level. That depends on one's interpretation of "slightly". The document goes on to state that Ireland may wish to retain its international position as a low tax economy but currently we are a too low tax economy.

I did not hear anybody quoting from that part of the document and subscribing to the sentiments expressed in it. I am glad we are continuing to proceed on these lines and looking after the taxpayer. During the past five and half years we have witnessed the most dramatic changes in the area of social welfare and the many other areas that affect us all, including, in particular, the important issue of income taxation. It is crucial that everybody gets enough money to live on. Those who are earning must pay for those who are not earning.

It is important that our young people are not driven out of the country by being over-taxed. I have previously given an example from my own experience, namely, that for the last year I worked in Irish Steel before coming to this House I was paid 67% during stoppages out of which I had to feed nine people. According to the definitions used here I would have been wealthy but, of course, I was not. I am glad Fianna Fáil got a grip on that issue.

During recent months I have read the comments of some Opposition Members who claim that this Government, over the previous five years, squandered much public finance. In a chart used by one of its Members, the areas quoted include the squandering of €22.6 billion on social welfare, including the increase for the elderly and the trebling of child benefit, as mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Carty. Also included in that criticism was the placing of funds in the pension reserve fund, an area that Ministers over the past 20 years described as a powder keg waiting to explode if action was not taken speedily to protect the future payment to pensioners. If that is an accurate description of our activities on this side of the House I can only ask the Minister and our colleagues to squander a good deal more on behalf of the elderly and the children of the country. Fianna Fáil can always be counted on to protect the lowly and the disadvantaged. I expect to see that pattern continued by my colleague the Minister, Deputy Coughlan. She has a complete grasp of her brief and long may that continue. It is important that each Minister is in touch with the difficulties being faced by the people.

What about the fuel allowance?

Since its inception, Fianna Fáil has believed in social inclusion. Members across the floor may shout but Deputy McGinley said on the record last week, perhaps in a moment of weakness, that when they left Government each Department had sufficient funding. That was at a time when, as I told one member of the Labour Party yesterday-—

The Deputy must have lost something in the translation; the accent must be misleading.

The Deputy will not shout louder than me; I have been in this business too long. I pointed out yesterday to a member of the Labour Party, when we were having a slag about the social welfare increases, that the president of his party when in Government, gave an increase of £1.10 to old age pensioners. He responded by saying, he is not one of ours. I said, "he may not have been then, but he certainly is now" and the Member is still part of that group. Deputy McGinley had enough money but he would not give it out.

The Deputy is not picking up the accent correctly.

We have looked after the real issues of unemployment, poverty and housing. They have been the key issues. We began to increase pensions, to clear the appalling slums in cities and to build new houses for the working classes.

What about the television licence fee?

We introduced unemployment assistance and pensions for the widows and orphans.

What about the fuel allowance?

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this blackguarding goes on here every morning from one or two Members. I do not want it to continue while I am speaking. Maybe the Taoiseach will put up with it but I have no intention of doing so.

On a point of order—

In European politics, political parties are following—

I realise the Deputy is getting very sensitive—

That is not a point of order.

Sensitivities are not in order.

Will I get extra time?

If the Deputy is that sensitive he should not bother getting up to speak at all.

The Deputy need not worry. I will be here. The Deputy should not look to his colleagues for support.

Every Deputy is entitled to speak without interruption.

It is noticeable and I am glad to say, looking across at the broad spread, that our policies have been ones of sustainable wealth creation as a means of advancing social inclusion. It sounds very simple but it is not that easy.

It is simple.

As has been said here previously—

I could not but rebut it given what the Deputy is trotting out.

I advise Deputy Kehoe not to get any bad habits. He has a good future but he should not join the rabble-rousers.

We are delighted—

They are now calling it the third way because many people joining the extreme left are coming in.

In what wing of Fianna Fáil is the Deputy? Is he with Deputy Ned O'Keeffe?

Obviously everyone is aware of the previous position of Fine Gael. It was uncaring and it was untenable.

Do not forget we spoke out.

No, the people spoke out and that is the reason there are 81 Members on this side. I forget how many is on the Deputy's side, but there were only 15 tonight at the last count.

How many are behind me?

I gave the Deputy a good hearing. Ná bí dána. Deputy Durkan was able to round up 17 Members tonight but the people gave us 81 Members.

I can re-arrange that, Deputy.

I can go back further if the Deputy wishes to the mid-1980s when there was unemployment, emigration and associated problems. Fianna Fáil was returned to Government in 1987, of which we are proud.

Can the Deputy remember back to 1977?

I must be saying the right things because the Deputy is trying to drown me out. If the Deputy recalls the social partnership agreement—

It could not be further—

—when, despite three failed attempts, we joined with the workers and the employers to face a more prosperous State. Hopefully, we will do so again over the next couple of months. It was Fianna Fáil who promoted the idea of joining the EEC and worked on it. Ireland was one of the poorest countries at that time within the Community. One cannot argue with figures and facts. However, we have turned things around to the extent that we are being quoted in CORI. I am glad we are being quoted as being one of the countries not taking much tax off workers. What was happening was a disgrace. I am proud that we are republicans. We have always wanted an equal Ireland where the poor can obtain the best service.

Make sure there are plenty of poor around.

We wanted jobs, a decent wage and good housing and that is what we still want. People shout when we mention that 300,000 additional jobs were created and that unemployment was more than halved to about 4.5%. My colleagues on Cork City Council worked on trying to get employment schemes going locally. We did not think long-term unemployment could be cut by 80% but it was. Long may that continue.

The national debt was reduced from 74% to 36%. Deputy Durkan, if I am not mistaken, was a Minister of State when we were technically bankrupt and the moneyed people of Europe were coming in. Our debt was at 126% of GDP.

I also remember who made the country bankrupt. I am not surprised the Deputy is ignoring that part of history.

Nearly €5 billion in personal income tax and PRSI reductions were delivered in the five budgets. Deputy Kehoe as a new Member may not remember the last five but I hope he reads up on them. As the Minister for Finance said, this is the first of five budgets. People rolled in the aisles when he announced his first budget. The second year it was less noisy and the third year there was not even a chuckle. People accepted he was right and was delivering.

The national pensions reserve fund was established. That was an important move and took a lot of courage. Most other Ministers down the years would have spent the money on today's issues and said to hell with the future pensioners. To date, €8 billion has been invested in that fund. Deputy Lynch will agree with me that at conferences we attended we were told that Ministers were waiting to explore that area. This Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, took on the issue and there will be money there for the people when they need it.

As Deputy Durkan knows, last May under the leadership of the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, we got a renewed mandate. We are determined to continue the pro business policies which in turn create the revenue to support our record increase in social welfare over the last five years. Our commitment is to keep conditions suitable for increased investment and job creation until the upturn in the world economy occurs. The facts support us. Many people have already mentioned that €530 million will go to social welfare improvements this year. Young Deputies like Deputy Kehoe would not even know what the figure for child benefit was in 1977. I will get it for him.

How much was a house in 1977?

This €530 million means that social welfare expenditure next year will be almost double the level set by Labour and Fine Gael when last in Government. As a result of changes made in last year's budget all social welfare increases are paid with effect from 1 January. In the Fine Gael and Labour Government one of the damning proposals was the movement of the increased payments to September. I hope the people with the calculators will factor that in when making calculations.

Did the Government pay child benefit in full last year?

People are paid a clear five months earlier than they were paid by Deputy Durkan's party when in Government.

The Deputy should conclude now.

The harassment I have taken is unfair. Deputy Durkan is taking advantage because he knows I am easily upset. I commend the Bill and compliment and congratulate our Minister who is doing an excellent job.

I will share time with Deputies Lynch, Wall and Gilmore.

Deputy Dennehy is normally sensible and keeps his feet on the ground. Things may be different in Cork but I suspect not. Perhaps Deputy Lynch will correct us in a few minutes. Let me remind Deputy Dennehy that there are a lot of people in the country who have been given a paltry increase of €6 in their basic social welfare income. That brings them up from €118.80 a week to €124.80 per week. These are people on disability allowance, unemployment assistance and basic widow's non-contributory pension. I would have thought Deputy Dennehy would be concerned about these people.

If we divide the allowance into what people are getting per day it is a mere €17.83 per day. Anybody who has gone shopping lately knows that one cannot buy much for that.

The Minister probably has someone shopping for her.

Probably. From that €124.80 people have to pay for foodstuffs and local authority rents, which will probably increase in the new year. They will have to pay the extra 1% on the basic VAT rate on their fuel allowance which has not increased at all. Their TV licence went up today and bus fares have also gone up. They will not be too concerned about the car tax as most of them cannot afford cars. These people are trying to live on a basic amount of money. It is appalling that we expect people to live on that kind of money. The Minister must agree with me on that.

We need to look at the reality. We tend to talk in large figures here as Deputy Dennehy did in regard to social welfare. This basic figure of €124.80 is what people are trying to live on. If people try to spread the extra €6 per week around the various increases they will not be able to meet their basic household bills at the end of the week. That is without paying any regard to inflation. We are not speaking about luxuries or Christmas shopping here, just the basics. We need to look at this issue in the context of our priorities. Not alone in the last budget, but in those over the last five years, there has been an emphasis on looking after the better off. No thought has been cast to the shopping baskets of people on basic incomes.

We can look similarly on the child benefit increase of €2 per week for the first two children. That amount would not buy a loaf of bread and a carton of milk. These sums are infinitesimal in terms of the costs people must bear. Despite cutbacks this year we are a rich country. In a time of such plenty the fact that we cannot afford to give a better basic increase to people is a scandal.

There has been no increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowances for those under 12. While the cost of clothes and shoes go up people are expected to pay for them from the same amount of money as last year. That is shameful.

A recent announcement was that the back to work allowance was to be cut from the current length of time to five years unemployed. That is a severe hardship for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own and who are trying to get back to work. Again, it is shameful that this allowance which they had as an incentive and support is now being cut back. We have heard fine talk about looking after the less well-off and the disadvantaged but the reality is different.

In the area of education, primary school building programmes have been cut back and frozen. Nothing is happening at the moment and schools that were promised by Ministers and Deputies before the election that work would be done have heard nothing. They do not know where they stand now.

The entirety of what we have been presented with in Deputy McCreevy's second book is unacceptable. It is unbalanced in terms of its concession to the better off and its lack of consideration of the real financial burdens of people on basic incomes. I would have expected better.

I am disappointed that Deputy Carty has left the Chamber as I wished to compliment him on his maiden speech which was typical of a Fianna Fáil mission statement. While I accept that he joined Fianna Fáil for all the noble and grandiose ideals which he laid before the House, I am astonished that he is still in that party. He must have realised by now that Fianna Fáil does not stand for any of those ideals.

The Deputy should address the subject of the Social Welfare Bill, for which this late sitting has been arranged.

Thank you, Sir. Deputy Carty referred to the achievement of Fianna Fáil's promise to increase the old age pension to €200. The figure was not €200 but £200, which equates to €254. The increases which this Minister has given to the poorest in society will ensure they will face this Christmas cold and without sufficient supplies to meet their needs. I challenge the Minister – and if she takes it up, I will undertake it with her – to live on €134 per week in the circumstances in which unemployed people find themselves. Let me give her some idea of what it is like to be unemployed. It is not just a daily grind but rather a year-round grind. The unemployed become very good at planning how to live on that amount of money, whether they are single or married with or without children. They make a list each week in preparation for their shopping on the day their dole or disability payment is made. They are confined to that list, with absolutely no flexibility. No matter what the bargain of the week may be, they cannot avail of it if it does not fit into the list.

That is how poverty affects people. In September, one starts to plan for Christmas, buying little bits and pieces from week to week. By the time Christmas comes, there is not a penny left in the house and one is desperately hoping there will be enough to keep going. From January onwards, the money goes on fuel. While the children are at school, regardless of how cold it may be, the fire remains unlit until about three o'clock, just before the children arrive home. People go hungry in order to feed their children. Come May, one starts to prepare for the return to school in September. Recently, a woman showed me the receipts for her outlay of €500 on basic clothing, not expensive brand names, for two children. That is in addition to the cost of fulfilling the normal Christmas expectations of her children.

Three years ago, the cost of home heating oil doubled in price in the space of one year and, as a result, the Government's fuel tax revenue also doubled. I pleaded with the Minister of the day to hand back that money in some form in order to ensure that the elderly would not have to stay in bed until midday to stay warm. Those are the realities of life. Yet, Deputy Dennehy has said all is well in the republic of Cork. I know of an elderly Corkman – he should also be known to Deputy Dennehy – who, according to his doctor and specialist, should be in hospital but is still desperately seeking a bed in the constituency which the Minister for Health and Children represents. Conditions are not good in Cork. The situation is no better than it was at any time. One cannot live on the amount of money which currently goes to the unemployed. It is adding insult to injury to tell them they are well-off.

Two years ago, the Taoiseach said he would ensure that widows were provided for in the following budget. Yet, young widows are left in an appalling plight, having to look after children on a miserable income. They should be allowed the same secondary benefits as widows over 66. The lack of attention to their plight is disgraceful. I repeat my challenge to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. If she will try to live at the social welfare income level for one week, I will do likewise. However, I guarantee that she will not be able to do so.

The Minister has laughed and joked shamefully to the point of embarrassment during this debate. Does she realise this is the most important Bill to pass through this House for the poor of this country? Her performance indicates that she does not care. Last night, in streets adjacent to this building, I saw many people huddled in doorways under cover of cardboard boxes. In that context, it is relevant to recall the action of this Minister in capping rent subsidy. As a result of her decision, there will be even more people in those doorways during the coming months. Yet, she has laughed and joked during this debate as if nothing mattered. She was afraid, or lacked the courage or determination to cap rents, place the burden of responsibility on landlords and protect poor people trying to live in rented accommodation.

Those people are in a desperate position as Christmas approaches and what the Minister has given them in the recent budget will make no difference. They will still have to gather up their pieces of cardboard each morning and put them by for the following night. The cap which the Minister has placed on rent subsidy will ensure that they remain in their present plight, with no prospect of obtaining rented accommodation and restoring some sense of pride to their lives. Yet the Minister has laughed and joked during the debate on the most important Bill to pass through this House before or after Christmas.

In relation to the carers' allowance, the most important people to the disabled are the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who care for them at home in the absence of any other facility. Nothing has been done to alleviate that problem, despite repeated promises by Fianna Fáil in Government. That neglect will continue because the Government knows those people will always care for their own. Is there no responsibility on the Government of the day to improve the financial position of those people? Instead of taking that responsibility seriously, this Minister has laughed and joked at the expense of the poorest in our society.

The Deputy's remarks are quite outrageous. He does not know what he is talking about.

It is very sad that, because of the Minister's failure to cap rents, people have to exist in such desperate conditions on the streets near this Dáil.

It is sad to see Fianna Fáil Members clutching at one issue or another to justify their claim that this budget and Social Welfare Bill protect the poorest in our society. It is also sad to listen to Deputies Dennehy and Carty struggling with their republican consciences to find some ideological justification in the dim and distant past for what is an appalling Social Welfare Bill. Earlier today, I listened to Deputy Ellis almost getting excited about widows over 66 getting €1 extra more than everybody else. What he did not tell us was that widows under 66, in many cases with young families and all the financial commitments that go with running a household, are getting the princely sum of €6 in the budget – the same as the basic increase in social welfare. If these people were getting €6 extra, it would be one thing, but they are not and that is the con in this budget because the €6 will be clawed back.

Anyone in local authority housing will have to pay a rent increase in February or March which will claw back the bulk of that and anyone in private rented accommodation has already had it clawed back because the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has increased the personal contribution required from people on rent allowance from €7.62 to €12 – an increase of €4.38. That leaves someone getting an increase of €6 in the Social Welfare Bill at the lowest rate with a net increase of €1.62.

When the rent allowance provision was first announced, I thought the Minister intended to cap the maximum rent allowance and, if rent was increased over that, people could still get rent allowance – just not as much. That would have been bad enough because it exposed poor people to paying higher rents to private landlords but what the Minister has done is worse than that – one of the clauses in the regulations she has made states:

A rent supplement shall not be payable where the amount of rent exceeds the appropriate maximum amount of rent as determined under paragraph (g) of sub-article 2.

In other words, if the rent payable goes over the maximum permitted by the health board, people will not get rent allowance at all.

That is not true.

That is what is in the regulation and that is the interpretation I have been given by staff who work in the community welfare service of the health boards. The case will arise where a landlord increases the rent over the maximum allowed and the community welfare service of the health board will withdraw a person's rent allowance entirely. The unfortunate tenant will find him or herself with a notice to quit being issued. I want to give notice to the Minister that the Labour Party will be tabling a motion in the House to have this regulation annulled. I advise her to withdraw it before her own Deputies get to hear about the fact that their constituents are going to have rent allowances withdrawn from them entirely when their rent goes over the maximum permitted by the health boards. It is the most savage, meanest, lousiest and nastiest cut made by the Government since it came into office and it has been inflicted on the poorest people of this country who are not organised into a lobby. They will now be particularly vulnerable when they go to community welfare officers because it is their last hope. They will go in with the announcement of rent increases from their landlords to be told by their community welfare officer that not only will their rent increase not be matched, but their rent allowance is being withdrawn altogether. I ask the Minister to get the regulation changed and bring forward a new regulation which withdraws this SI 527 of 2002 which is flawed and will result in additional people being made homeless.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Hanafin.

I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate her on her appointment to Cabinet. Reading the pre-budget submissions made by many lobby groups, I suspect the Minister took everything into account. I refute the allegation that she was laughing through the debate. Members will be aware that the Minister is a popular Member of the House and it is her demeanour to take things seriously. I do not think she projects an uncaring image and that can be proven by reference to the allocation she secured from the Estimates and the budget.

I am not here just to talk up the Fianna Fáil manifesto or proposals but to highlight the recognition of the various groups' submissions in the Social Welfare Bill. I appreciate that everything sought in submissions in recent weeks has not come to fruition but the package for social welfare goes a long way towards meeting the needs of many groups. I wish to highlight the carer's allowance in the context of the previous Administration and this one. While it may not be the easiest one to take out of the social welfare package, it has taken years to get to a level where the disregard has been increased in each budget. While we have had many submissions from various groups over the years that suggest we should disregard the means test, I would prefer to see the income disregard increased rather than the means test abolished.

One of the greatest means of measuring a Government's success in dealing with poverty and funding for social welfare is that of consistent poverty. The ESRI report has recognised, particularly since 1994, that consistent poverty has been dealt with fairly successfully through the policies of this Administration and the previous one. I hope to see the Minister continue with these policies so we see a reduction from 15.9% to 6% in 2002. Policies of this nature recognise that, in an economy growing at full speed, we often see the gaps between the well-off and the less well-off widen and it is something of which Government's need to be aware. This Minister has recognised that.

We should recognise the commitment of officials in the Department of Social and Family Affairs to become more customer-friendly and I wish them good speed with further decentralisation to rural areas where people have the opportunity to deal with officials face to face. I ask the Minister to speed up the appeals system. It is nonsensical that people may be brought in for second or third medical examinations within a short period of time. This should be resolved.

In recent weeks, the main lobby groups have been talking about the need to increase child benefit, pensions and the carer's allowance. I welcome the increase in child benefit. While we never realise the increase we hope for, the whole child benefit proposals and what is contained in this Bill recognise that it is an essential part of family income and gives independent status to the woman in the home. I hope this benefit is never taxed or means tested.

The point is often made that many people do not need child benefit and lodge it directly to post office savings accounts but that is often a means of ensuring that children can get third level education. We are clearly engaged in a political debate as to what the Government must prune and what it can deliver upon. As a Government backbencher I recognise that the commitments to increase the value of rates in all systems in real terms have been realised in the budget. While additional increases to those over 66, including widows, may not have reached the targets we had hoped for in this budgetary year, we are in a time of financial constraint and the Minister must take account of that.

As regards the carer's allowance, health boards and voluntary bodies have recognised the value of carers' work in the home for years. We understand the extra cost the State would have to bear if the same care was being provided in institutions. I am not indulging in political plámás but we can never overstate the case for continuing such supports. The Government has recognised the role of carers in providing first rate care. Further recognition has been demonstrated by providing an extra €10 per week for those over 66 and €7 for those below that age.

It is important to recognise the improvements in the means test for the carer's allowance by increasing the weekly income disregard by €19 per week. That is moving towards a system whereby most people will be able to apply to be cared for at home. The Government's social welfare policy is working and it should be recognised that a consistent policy has been pursued to ensure that people return to work. Some 400,000 additional people are now at work compared to the period of the last Administration and that reduces the need for extra budgetary measures in that regard.

I pay tribute to carer's groups who have consistently made the point that the level of support they have received from the Government in recent years reflects the recognition of their contribution in the home. The former Minister made provision for a bereavement grant which had not been recognised previously. I am not promoting such an increase this year or next, but the former Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, increased that subvention to £500. While there is no immediate need to review the issue, I hope it will be reviewed every five years. On the last occasion the grant had not been reviewed for ten or 15 years. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on securing this level of investment for social welfare. I am certain that over the coming months and years the Minister will prove her worth. It is not just a matter of accepting submissions and listening because this Minister will be active in implementing policy.

The Bill provides evidence that even in times of global uncertainty the Government is determined to press ahead to try, as far as possible, to meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of our society. The legislation should be seen in the context of the changes we have produced in the past five years, including social welfare increases. The Bill builds upon the progress that has been made during that time by the Government parties. It will ensure that we meet our core objective of providing for those whom we need to help most, our children, pensioners and social welfare recipients generally, even when money is not as flúirseach as it was.

Over the past five years we have prioritised different facets of social inclusion, including the tackling of poverty and drug abuse, stimulating employment, providing better retirement conditions for the elderly and supporting families. Members of the House would have to agree that we have reduced poverty to historically low levels during that period. We have increased the basic income of welfare-dependent people by up to 50%, which is way ahead of inflation or industrial wage increases. It addresses our commitment to these people and shows that we are focusing on improving the lives of young and old alike. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has demonstrated the necessary compassion and I congratulate her on managing to achieve such a package of measures in the current budgetary circumstances.

As Deputy Moloney and others have said, the Bill should not be viewed in isolation. In 1997, the rate of child benefit was the equivalent of just €38.09 per month for the first and second children, and €49.52 for the third and subsequent children In budget 2001 we announced an unprecedented investment of €1.27 billion in increased child benefit over a number of subsequent budgets, and we have met two-thirds of that target. The Bill allows for another €105 million to bring child benefit payments to €125.60 for the first and second children, and €157.30 for the third and subsequent children. When these rates come into effect on 1 April 2003, they will represent a 250% increase on the 1997 rate. In anyone's language this is a spectacular increase and is clear evidence of the Government's determination to tackle child poverty. Mothers are the ones who receive child benefit payments and they can judge how best to spend it on their children.

Another example of this trend is the 25% increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, which targets children when they most need such assistance. Some 65,500 children will benefit from this allowance. We all recognise the added pressures on parents in the autumn, so this payment coupled with the child benefit scheme will ensure we can continue to address their needs.

In my previous responsibility for children I was involved in tackling child poverty. In the national children's strategy we pledged to eliminate child poverty and we have worked towards that goal quickly. A major contributing factor has been the increase in child benefit which, over the past six years, has lifted 75,000 children out of poverty. No level of child poverty is acceptable in a progressive society, so it is vital that we continue to move forward in implementing all aspects of the national children's strategy. The Minister has a particular interest in the national anti-poverty strategy and it is important that all these aspects be tackled in the context of the coming few budgets.

The role of the elderly was unappreciated and undervalued for a long time. For comparative purposes, in 1997, the old age pension was the equivalent of €99 per week. Over the past six years, the cumulative increase of €53, or 59%, has made a real difference to the lives of more than 100,000 pensioners, people who have made an important contribution to the economic and social development of the nation. As a Government, we say that these people matter. Even in times when we did not have as much to give to others, the priority given to the elderly in the pension increase of €10 is the first increment in our commitment to increase the State pension to €200 per week by 2007.

We will resist all calls by the Opposition who have asked us to play roulette with the pension reserve fund. The security of this fund is essential to ensure that today's pension increases can be paid for in the future. I cannot understand how members of the Opposition would ask us to jeopardise the security of the pension fund because providing for the elderly must be the cornerstone of our social policy. One of the most courageous decisions taken by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, in the past couple of years was to set aside investment for that fund. We should be mindful of the fact that the people currently in this House will benefit from the fund's existence.

Other speakers have mentioned carers and the Government obviously wants to give full recognition to their role. Until a few years ago very little, if any, recognition was given to the fact that so many people worked around the clock caring for the sick and elderly in their own homes. Enormous fees would be involved if they were to provide the same services professionally, but they do not. They do it out of love for people who are close to them. It is important in an increasingly individualistic age to do all we can to encourage and reward carers. They have been long neglected, but we are determined to continue to make the impact we have been making for the past couple of years. Last year we extended the carer's allowance scheme from 9,000 to more than 20,000 recipients, and the improvement in the means test for the carer's allowance in this Bill will help to extend the numbers even further. The increase in the payments by €10—

The Minister of State might wish to revise her figures.

The increase in the payments was €10.

I am referring to the 9,000 and the 20,000. I do not think those figures are correct.

Allow the Minister of State to continue. The debate was going well before the Deputy arrived.

I hope the House will not be misled, even unintentionally.

Those were the figures when the last Government took over in 1997.

The Minister of State said last year.

The current Government took over in 1997.

What was so special about 1997?

Last year we increased the numbers to a total of 20,000. I accept that there are many more carers. This measure will help to extend the numbers and the increase in the payment of €10 per week for people aged 66 and over and €7 for those under 66 years of age—

Will that buy a new television licence?

Allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption.

—will ensure that the real value of their work is safeguarded. It is one area where we will continue to make considerably more progress. I know that Deputy Coughlan will also address this issue in her next four social welfare Bills.

Will the Minister of State give her the money? There was little this year.

Deputy Coughlan did extraordinarily well in the circumstances with the budget package she managed to achieve.

Twenty five cent.

I commend the various agencies and the money being allocated to them. Agencies such as Comhairle are playing a valuable independent role in empowering people and providing them with information on their entitlements. With one of the three or four hats that I now wear, the information society being one, let me say that the Comhairle website provides valuable information. As soon as the Minister for Finance had finished his Budget Statement, the Comhairle website had all the budget changes up. As a Government, we need to ensure that information is readily available to as many people as possible. That depends not just on Deputies holding clinics and running advice centres. Agencies like Comhairle help us to meet that challenge. The extra €1 million allocated to it by the Minister is recognition of its work.

The same is true of the €1 million allocated to the family support agency. New research launched today proves that family mediation and counselling works. Anything that can help families at times of stress should be supported. When the previous Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, put the Family Mediation Service on a statutory footing it brought together all the different schemes and programmes that try to help couples, particularly where children are involved. The value of that service cannot be exaggerated. The results of the research from Accord highlights its importance. We should give whatever support we can to groups like this not just in the interests of individual families under stress but in the interests of the wider society, because the whole of society gains from something like that.

Almost €1 million is being allocated to MABS which does tremendous work in all areas of the country. It got an increase of €960,000, which will go towards offering good advice to people. The €200,000 extra for the Combat Poverty Agency and the €300,000 for the emigrant advice centres constitute recognition by the Government of the work of these agencies.

We aim to continue to protect the vulnerable despite economic uncertainty. We will ensure that the welfare of our children, our elderly and our social welfare recipients remains at the heart of Government policy. This Bill safeguards those and enables us to make progress. We are cognisant of the challenges of the global economic downturn. We must be fiscally prudent and avoid the failed tax and spend measures of the past. Despite all of that, this Government will remain committed to those who are most in need and it will rise to the challenge of ensuring an improved standard of living for everybody.

I understand the Minister is giving some of her time to Deputy Morgan. The Deputy has five minutes.

I am in an invidious position because I have to thank the Minister for giving me time for what the Dubs would call "giving her a lash".

The consequences for social welfare recipients of this budget are serious. It means the difference between having food or being hungry for some. It is tragic that many families will suffer severely as a consequence of the miserly contribution of the Minister for Finance.

One of the benefits on which social welfare recipients depend heavily is the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. While the increase of €150 for secondary school students is welcome, even if a bit miserly, the decision not to change the rate for primary school students is unbelievable. Deputy McCreevy is out of touch if he thinks €80 goes anywhere near clothing and preparing a youngster to go back to school. The cost of clothing, footwear, runners, copy books, text books and so on must be met and people are being given €80 to do it. One could not imagine Deputy McCreevy going to the bookie's hatch and searching through his wallet for €80 for a bet at the Curragh. The clerk would probably fall out of her standing if he presented such a token. However, this is the difference between a youngster being able to face into the classroom with some warmth and comfort, and that is denied by this Minister. It is interesting to compare that with the range of tax loopholes that we were promised would be dealt with and were not touched. There were many other funding opportunities. For example, the Revenue Commissioners' examination or audit in 1997 that found that some 5% of the richest people in this State were paying as little as 5% tax. The money was unquestionably there but there was no desire to go after it from that source. It was an easier option to cut payments to those in society who are least well-off.

It is scandalous that a range of organisations that do such good work in the State have had their funding cut. The Money Advice Budgeting Service, which deals with the poorest of the poor in society, those who are struggling to pay their ESB bills and whose local authority rents are grossly in arrears, has had its budget cut by 8%. It defies logic. Other areas of the community and voluntary sector have also been raided by the Minister to ensure that he does not have to do anything that might worry his rich and powerful friends. Grants for community and voluntary services have been cut by 16%. Funding for the anti-racism awareness programme has been reduced by 63%. Funding for the Council for the Status of People with Disabilities is to be reduced by 44%. The most vicious and mean-spirited of all the cuts is that another 5,000 jobs are to go in community employment schemes. These schemes provide opportunities in the most difficult and impoverished areas of society. They provide essential services such as child care and assistance to old people, and 5,000 jobs are going at a time when they should be considerably increased. However, to do so would have involved Deputy McCreevy searching for funding elsewhere, and we know where, and we know where he did not want to go and so, as was said in this House many times in the course of this debate, the stallions in Kildare got the benefit while the youngsters of this nation were left, in some cases, quite literally cold and hungry.

The Minister is as devoted a disciple of the principle of redistribution of wealth as I have ever seen, but he seems to have misunderstood one of its most basic rules, that wealth should be redistributed from the rich to the poor and the disadvantaged. Unfortunately, the Minister has got it the wrong way around.

I thank all the Members of the House who participated in the debate. I have been a Member of this House for 15 years and I have never known any Member to feel he or she was better than another. I take umbrage at the remark by the Deputy for the Labour Party who would question my sincerity in caring for others. It is equal to his own or that of any other Member, regardless of whether we hold a different philosophy. I am as sincere as any Member of the House. I may not agree with the views of other Members but I regard every Member as being sincere in the expression of those views. Nor do I appreciate the fact that some feel they are equipped to tell another Member of the House what it is like to be in poverty. If we were all as sincere as we profess to be, some of us might not be in this House because we would be unable to live up to our own standards. The members of my party and I are as committed to the alleviation of poverty as any Member of this House. It is incumbent on all of us, as servants of the public, to be that way.

I was faced with choices. Opposition Deputies asked was I going to be one of those Deputies who hark back to what we did five years ago. I normally would not. My choice was between giving everything to everybody or targeting resources to those whom my party and I decided were most in need of support. I decided to target resources. In 1997, on the other hand, €3.81 was given to everyone. That is what the rainbow Government decided to do and my party did not agree with it. This Government decided to target spending. We gave €10 to pensioners and €11 to widows over 66. They have a problem which is recognised by all Members and we are addressing that issue. We also targeted carers. We have increased the disregards and allowed 1,700 extra people to participate in the carer's allowance or carer's benefit schemes. We have a target of 5,000 more participants in the next five years. I hope to reach that target and go beyond it. If I had €500 million I would allow every carer to participate in the scheme but I had a choice to make. I had to make choices in those three areas and those are the choices I made.

In the context of people putting forward their cases, Members of the Opposition mentioned a figure of 25 cent. However, we must look at the baseline. Five years of increased benefit has been continued by me, with further targets to be reached over the next five years in delivering on the national anti-poverty strategy. We would like to go beyond that.

I agree that child benefit is the best way to alleviate child poverty and I believe the majority of Members agree with that. We delivered on the first two tranches. It would be totally disingenuous of me to say I will try to reach our target in one year or two. The Minister for Finance and I have undertaken to reach the target in three years. With €105 million I was in a position to give increases of €8 and €10. We will deliver on the promise in the next three years.

The promise was made for this year.

On that basis I would have needed €414 million. My full budget package was €530 million. A choice had to be made.

Should there be an apology?

I could have given all the money to child benefit this year and have €100 million for everything else.

Will the Minister apologise?

I have said on a number of occasions – I was totally upfront about the matter after the publication of the Estimates – that I would not have adequate resources to deal with child benefit.

So the Minister will apologise.

The Minister for Finance and I have undertaken to deliver on the promise within three years.

Live horse and get grass.

At least we made the effort and we have delivered.

We do not see it.

It is great to see the champagne socialist has returned.

Get out of it.

They can give it but they cannot take it.

We certainly can do that.

The Minister sniggered and sneered her way through the debate last night. She was a disgrace.

As I said Deputy Stagg is not any more sincere about these issues than I am.

She was a disgrace last night.

Deputy Ring pontificated about consultants. A sum of €11.29 million was made available last year for consultancies.

Some €19 million was spent in two years.

The sum of €8 million was spent the year before.

(Interruptions).

Let me make my point. The truth is hard to take. In the context of the resources available to me I decided to cut that budget. It is now €4 million.

No more consultants.

It has been cut to the bone in order that we can continue with vital services which must be provided by my Department. These are services with which Deputy Ring agrees, such as Grow. This will allow us to deal with the provision of public service in a better way. Deputy Ring cannot say it is wrong to do this. I do not think so.

Cut them out.

We are also looking towards completing schemes in child benefit and moving to pensions services in order to deliver better services to our customers. I took between €7 million and €8 million from the consultancy budget because I believed that was the right choice in the context of the money available to me.

The Minister agrees with me.

If I could get rid of consultants some of the Opposition Deputies might come in and do the work free.

We will give the Minister the information and we will not charge.

We would never charge the Minister.

If the Minister addressed her remarks through the Chair she might not provoke interruptions.

I appreciate that the work done by the back-to-work allowance scheme was excellent. Much work was done through Leader, partnerships and community development.

The Minister has scrapped it.

Many Deputies were of the opinion that the Government needed help in making decisions. We have the three wise men's report. Anyone who read that report will see that it recommended the complete abolition of the back-to-work allowance.

The Minister is the Government, not an bord snip. She is passing the buck to another quango.

I decided that was not the right way forward, that the scheme was beneficial. In that context I targeted the scheme to the long-term unemployed, lone parents and people on disability. These were the people who needed it most.

She did away with a good scheme.

We have decided on our priorities. In order to ensure that people can participate in the scheme it will remain but will be targeted and anyone on the scheme can remain so.

For five years.

One of the difficulties Opposition Members have about poverty analysis is that if people move into employment they may move beyond the welfare system.

Until after the next general election.

Deputy Stagg, the Minister is entitled to make her contribution without interruption. She is entitled to have her contribution on the record of the House and no Member has the right to frustrate another Member, on either side, from making a contribution without interruption.

It is very difficult.

A Cheann Comhairle, I wish you had been here last night.

Quite obviously, I have a high regard for the fact that other Members of the House listened to the debate on this Bill, which is an important part of the legislative calendar of the House. I am delighted to hear that.

Most of us did not get an opportunity to speak on the Bill.

There is one minute remaining.

It is difficult to get one's point across when one is being distracted by things that are not important.

Does the Minister think the back to work scheme is not important?

As a member of this Government and as the Minister in charge of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, it is important that I am totally committed to reducing poverty and supporting the less well-off in the lifetime of the Government.

Will reductions in social welfare help to reduce poverty?

Tell that to the Labour Party.

It is a cunning scheme.

The Government will not help to reduce poverty by increasing television licences and motor tax.

Tell that to the Labour Party.

We are working in the context of the national anti-poverty strategy, which is an all-encompassing strategy—

Twenty-five cent.

—to deliver for the less well-off.

The Minister is just as responsible as the Minister for Finance.

The Deputy is a hypocrite.

The Deputy would not know much about it.

I appreciate that it is difficult for those on the Opposition benches to listen to what we have achieved—

We know what the Government has done.

—what we propose to achieve and what we have delivered.

There is no sign of it now.

(Interruptions).

It is time to conclude.

Can I say that having €530 million this year, with a budget of over €10 billion—

Twenty-five cents.

It is better than that.

—is over twice what the Opposition purported to be the greatest thing since the sliced pan. We have delivered and we will deliver again.

Time is up.

We are just as genuine on this side of the House as Deputies are on the other side in our intention to help the less well-off.

Question put.

Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.

Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Burton, Joan.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Gilmore, Eamon.

Gogarty, Paul.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz. Morgan, Arthur.

Níl–continued

Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.

Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share