Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 2003

Vol. 562 No. 2

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. P. Breen

I referred briefly before the debate was adjourned for lunch to the acquisition of a new jet by the Government and the case of a male patient who checked himself out of hospital yesterday and was charged €200 for his trouble. The slogan "Jets for the boys, long hours for our doctors and nurses and unbelievably long queues in our hospitals for the rest of us" applies. The stark reality is electricity charges will increase by 10%; gas prices by 9%; VAT by 8%; motor tax by 12% and hospital charges by 26%. Meanwhile the threshold for the drugs refund scheme has increased by 31%, VHI charges have increased by 18%, bank charges by 108% and the television licence has increased by 40%.

Prices in supermarkets are increasing by 5% per annum, the highest rate of increase in Europe. The price of a house has almost trebled since Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats came into power. According to EUROSTAT, despite the boom and the election promises, our standard of living has deteriorated and is among the worst in Europe because increases in the cost of goods and services have run far ahead of income increases.

The Bill does nothing to counteract this. Child benefit will increase by €8 a month, which is barely enough to buy a packet of nappies. This increase has been introduced by a Government that promised to tackle child poverty. It is a case of promises made, promises broken. Full rate social welfare payments have increased by €6 a week which is not enough to cover the increase in the cost of prescription medicines or to match inflation. The Government said it would work towards a benchmark of €150 for all social welfare payments. It is again a case of promises made, promises broken.

The old age pension has been increased by €10 a week and the Government is probably proud of that, but it should not be because it will be more than offset by the increase in Government charges.

Mr. Treacy

We are proud of that.

Mr. P. Breen

According to the relevant committees, to meet the target in the national anti-poverty strategy the increase would have to be approximately €13.

Mr. Durkan

To help pay for the Government jet.

Mr. Treacy

Does the Deputy want us to use bicycles?

Mr. Durkan

The Minister of State wants everybody on bicycles.

Mr. P. Breen

The carer's allowance was increased by €7 a week. The Minister of State should be ashamed of himself. The allowance is virtually denied to anybody with an income and it has been increased by an utterly pathetic €7 per week. Carers, who earn only 77 cent per hour for work in their homes, save the State a staggering €2 billion.

The programme for Government states, "We are committed to building service provision and legislative frameworks which enable people with disabilities to fulfil their potential and make a full contribution to the economic and social life of our country." How this can be achieved by treating carers with such insulting disregard is beyond me. The Bill is the product of an ugly, greedy mentality that has infected the Government and the country where we are viewed merely as statistics in an economy and not as people in a society.

This failed Government has provided for a revolting widening of the wealth gap by a massive €243 per person. The rich have become richer, the poor have become poorer and the Government has washed its hands of them. Fine Gael's message is stark. There are 50,000 families on local authority housing waiting lists, 6,000 people without a home and crime is soaring. Home ownership is out of the reach of young people, with house prices soaring. Unemployment is on the increase while job creation is decreasing. Almost 600 jobs have been lost in my constituency over the past two years.

The national development plan is overdue and over budget. Our schools building programme is crumbling. I refer to a meeting with the Minister for Education and Science in Clare last Monday. An extension was promised for a secondary school in Kilmihil. There are currently 330 pupils in a school designed for 175 pupils.

Mr. Treacy

Population growth, economic success.

Mr. P. Breen

There is no promise of a new school as there is in many parts of the country. Our hospitals resemble something from Crimea. A sum of €15 million was promised to Ennis General Hospital but nothing has happened in that regard. We are waiting for the Minister for Finance to release the funding, if he ever does.

The poor failed to benefit from the boom and are suffering in the slump. Why, at a time when stud owners are not taxed and the badly planned SSIA scheme presents a financial time-bomb for the Exchequer can the Government not see where the axe should fall? What warped set of priorities and values does this Government hold when people are sleeping wrapped in blankets in doorways and families on minimum wage are unable to maintain a basic standard of living?

Through this Bill the poor are paying for the Government's great election lie. A sum of €1 billion was set aside in budget 2002 for social welfare provisions. That amount is halved this year. That is not readjustment, it is a cutback. The test of a Bill is how well it sits with the people. As the Minister for Education has explained, the Minister for Social Welfare should explain his proposals to social welfare recipients. Let the Minister address the people of Tallaght, Kilrush, Clare and Gweedore in County Donegal. The Government knows this Bill is an insult and is the product of bad economic management. Such is the moral bankruptcy of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats that they are no longer affected by such matters. Let the message go out loud and clear, this Government has again broken the promises it made in the last election. It has protected the rich and penalised the poor, shame on it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order for people in the public gallery to applaud.

Mr. Killeen

I wish to share time with Deputy Brendan Smith.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Killeen

I will do my best not to extract a similar response from people in the public gallery.

This is the second Bill on social welfare provisions from the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Coughlan. I commend her on the work she has done in the Department since her appointment. The Bill provides for expenditure of €530 million out of a total social welfare budget of €10 billion which is a record level of provision in this area, as the Minister said yesterday.

The Government is rightly proud of the substantial increases it has been possible to introduce in the area of old age pensions. Previous speakers contend that increases did not reach the level of inflation. If one looks at the figures, they exceeded it by a considerable distance. Anyone who remembers the situation which prevailed four or five years ago will only be too well aware that the pension provision was extremely miserly. Significant advances for people in receipt of pensions have been made since then. People who care to remember, will know that the undertaking given to increase the old age pension to £100, the currency used then, was laughed out of court. Fortunately, it was delivered on and has been further increased in the intervening period.

One of the worrying and negative aspects of this and other debates has been the number of people prepared to find fault with the provisions made for the elderly. We owe a debt of gratitude to the older members of our society. They worked hard to build up a fledgling State, a reserve and an economic power previously unheard of and did so in very difficult times. Whatever provisions are made for them are only what they deserve. I look forward to further increases in this area.

The biggest breakthrough over the past five years has been in the area of child benefit. It is long since accepted that child benefit is the most effective intervention in terms of addressing child poverty. The substantial increases provided by the Government in recent years have made a significant impact. Child benefit has become a key strategic tool for intervention in the area of child poverty. It has been much more successful than is generally credited. It is an area which should continue to receive attention and resources. There is a need for specific targeting of some geographic areas and some families. It is important to consider this in the context of the numbers involved. More than 500,000 families are in receipt of child benefit and there are more than one million children on whose behalf it is paid. They represent the future. It is important they be given every chance in life. The manner in which they are provided for dictates to a great extent what kind of society we will have in future.

Targeting of child benefit ahead of other payments, particularly in times of reduced resources, is a system that will work to the benefit of the country. One of the areas in which considerable progress can be made – and some progress has been made – is access to education at all levels. Young people should have access to education in a manner which enables them to derive the maximum benefit from it. Many factors militate, very strongly in some instances, against the delivery of equal education in some communities. Targeting of ways to address the difficulties created by poverty which commenced seven or eight years ago have had considerable success.

The appointment of resource and remedial teachers is new. People are so used to talking about school requirements that they forget the appalling reality from which we emerged a very short time ago. I have been in politics for a little more than ten years. Prior to that I spent 20 years as a teacher, mostly as a school principal. I never had the pleasure – operating in a school of fewer than 100 pupils – of welcoming a resource or remedial teacher or any kind of classroom assistant to the school. Whatever provision is now being made has replaced virtually nothing. Special needs assistants were available to bigger schools but even then the level of provision was much less than would have been desirable. Considerable progress has been made in addressing children's needs in terms of poverty and education. Even more progress was made when it was possible to target the resources at particular areas. That is the challenge which faces us now.

The area of social welfare is one in which political activists and public representatives have reason to make representations from time to time, as we do in relation to a host of other Departments. I pay tribute to the staff of my local social welfare office in Ennis. They display great professionalism, not only when dealing with public representatives but also when dealing with the public at every level.

Mr. Treacy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Killeen

They provide a wonderful level of service and they go far beyond what is required of them in terms of explaining entitlements and helping people to access benefits. Such facts ought to be acknowledged.

Particular difficulties are being faced in the agriculture sector. Single income farm families with school-going children have many concerns and face an uncertain future. It should be possible to amend the social welfare code to provide short-term assistance – for as little as a month or two – to families that have particular concerns because the income they need is not always available.

Substantial advances have been made in meeting the needs of carers, but they have been made against a background that was particularly bad. Campaigns are frequently mounted to extend carer's allowance to everyone, regardless of income, but I believe it is difficult to sustain such an argument in the context of limited resources. Substantial negative factors, such as the spread of available resources, are associated with the lack of a means test. There is a strong case for addressing the burdens and needs of certain carers, such as those providing 24 hour care with relatively little respite, by paying them a higher level of carer's allowance. The people to whom I refer encounter many difficulties as a result of their burdens, despite the fact that the carer's allowance is at a reasonable level.

There is considerable merit in examining the possibility of directing more resources to those with the greatest need. I refer to those who care for people with autism or a disability, for example. Deputies are familiar with the cases of people who receive carer's allowance for looking after people who are almost as capable of caring as the carer. Equally, we encounter cases where there is an obvious need for carer's allowance to be paid, but it is not being paid for one reason or other.

The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has announced changes in provisions for orphans and foster carers, arising from the recommendations of the working group. I commend the Minister and a number of her Cabinet colleagues for addressing various working groups' recommendations. There is a fear that wonderful reports will be ignored, even though they have been prepared at considerable expense. We should acknowledge Ministers who take on board proposals made in reports of working groups.

Mr. B. Smith

I am happy to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs mentioned yesterday that the Social Welfare Bill 2002, which was necessary to facilitate the payment from 1 January 2003 of increased social welfare benefits, including pensions, was passed shortly before Christmas. She also pointed out that the 2003 social welfare budget is about €10 billion, compared to €5.7 billion in 1997.

Deputy Killeen stated that there have been welcome improvements in pension rates and child benefit payments. Deputy Patrick Breen mentioned the need for better primary schools accommodation, and all Deputies share that view. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, referred to the fact that additional accommodation is needed in many instances as a result of the increase in population. The Ceann Comhairle and I are familiar with schools in our constituency that have lost teachers, have had to close or have been amalgamated with other schools as a result of depopulation, but that, thankfully, is no longer the case in most of rural Ireland. Those of us who represent very rural constituencies in the Border region know that towns and villages suffered over the years when their population levels decreased. I am glad the recent census showed that the trend has been reversed and that the population is increasing, which means that there is pressure for more school accommodation in rural Ireland.

Two important and successful schemes in the area of education, which was discussed by Deputy Killeen, are operated by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the vocational training opportunities scheme and the back to education scheme. I would like the VTO scheme to be extended and promoted throughout the country. All Members of this House and public representatives at local authority level have encouraged individuals to avail of the VTOS. Many of the people I encouraged went on to study at other centres of further education, such as Cavan College of Further Studies and Monaghan Institute of Further Education and Training. Many of the people to whom I refer went on to obtain a third level qualification at an institute of technology or a university. It is obvious that educational attainment is linked to a person's ability to obtain employment.

If we are to end the cycle of poverty and disadvantage that is prevalent in many communities, we have to encourage people to participate in education and to gain qualifications. The Department and the vocational education committees have done a good job in operating the VTOS. Perhaps literature could be sent out to interested parties as part of the extension and promotion of the scheme. The back to education allowance is not availed of to a satisfactory extent. A good allowance is made available to people to go back to college to pursue courses and to obtain skills and qualifications to help them to take up positions in the workforce. The Department of Social and Family Affairs, in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science and the vocational education committees, should expand the schemes I have mentioned and make further provision for them. I commend the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, for her work in that role to date. I do not doubt that she will improve the delivery of social welfare services in many respects during the next four and a half years.

Complaints have been made to me on many occasions in relation to people on low incomes who are not helped, under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, to obtain or purchase essential items when they move into a new home. All public representatives have received representations from persons with low incomes who have been allocated local authority houses, but who feel they are being discriminated against in comparison to their neighbours, whose only income consists of social welfare payments but who may not have a smaller disposable income. There may not be many cases of persons in employment being discriminated against in such a manner, but the clause that means that they are denied supplementary welfare allowance should be reviewed. Persons in employment, but with low incomes, should receive assistance if they need it.

Deputy Killeen referred to the positive work of social welfare officers throughout the country, many of whom go beyond the call of duty by encouraging people to avail of their rights and to claim their entitlements. Community welfare officers from health boards provide assistance to families in difficult circumstances, when they are at their most vulnerable in times of bereavement or when they are experiencing household problems. In recent years, proper recognition has at last been given to the provision of an adequate pension for senior citizens. The Fianna Fáil Party commitment in 1997 to raise considerably the payment of pensions was honoured and more.

Mr. Broughan

The Deputy should talk to the Senior Citizens' Parliament.

Mr. B. Smith

I am talking about facts, not Proinsias De Rossa.

Mr. Broughan

It represents the workers.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Smith should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. B. Smith

I recall Deputy Broughan on these benches defending the £1.80 increase made by Proinsias De Rossa, then Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Treacy

Where is Frank Ross?

Mr. Durkan

When will Deputy Smith talk about the last ten years?

Mr. Treacy

Deputy Durkan should look in the mirror on that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies must allow Deputy Smith to speak without interruption.

Mr. B. Smith

When it hurts, Deputy Durkan wakes up. Deputy Durkan was the Minister of State in that Department at that time.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy cannot even get history right.

Mr. B. Smith

I believe I am right in that Deputy Durkan was the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare during that period.

Mr. Durkan

I am very proud of it. Some 1,000 jobs per week were being created at that time.

Mr. B. Smith

The Deputy must have amnesia if he contradicts what I have said. Pensioners were not getting much benefit from Deputy Durkan and from former Deputy De Rossa. At that time, Deputy Broughan staunchly defended the record of his colleagues in Government.

Mr. Broughan

The Deputy should talk to the worker's parliament.

Mr. B. Smith

The promises made by Fianna Fáil with regard to pension payments were more than honoured. The promises made by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in 2002 with regard to the increase in payments that will occur during the lifetime of the Government will be honoured also.

Mr. Broughan

The Government did not honour them before Christmas.

Mr. B. Smith

Members can meet with the senior citizens of this country as I do every week.

Mr. Broughan

All Members do.

Mr. B. Smith

I meet those who are appreciative of the substantial increases made by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in Government and the improvement that has been made to the income position of senior citizens. Not alone were pension increases honoured, improvements were also made to various free schemes such as free electricity allowance, free telephone rental allowance and others. I look forward over the coming years to seeing pension increase commitments honoured again. At the end of the lifetime of this Government in four and a half years' time, the income position of pensioners will have improved once again.

Deputy Killeen referred to the outstanding work carried out by carers in our society. There have been welcome improvements in carer's allowance and the eligibility criteria.

Mr. Broughan

The Government has a lot more to do.

Mr. B. Smith

I accept that there is room for improvement.

Mr. Broughan

There certainly is.

Mr. B. Smith

The health boards' home help scheme provides assistance in that regard but a new type of scheme should be developed to care for those who need care and attention daily but who do not need it on a 24 hour basis. The Department of Social and Family Affairs, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Children and the health boards, should set about devising a scheme where one half of a carer's allowance payment could be made available to a family member or otherwise.

I hope it will be possible to develop a new type of system because it is difficult in many areas to source those in a position to provide home help to others. I hope this can be considered so that a family member is not denied the opportunity to get some recognition and assistance towards the care of another family member or otherwise. I am glad to have the opportunity to support and congratulate the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, on her work and to support the work of the Government in the area of social welfare.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to share my time with Deputy Broughan, by agreement.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

It saddens me to hear members of the Government party clapping themselves on the back for giving to people on social welfare payments which are so low that no Member of this House would be prepared to live on them, and I doubt if many people working in the State apparatus responsible for administering the payments would be prepared to live on them either. The increases made by the Government, such as they are and about which we hear such self-praise from the Government benches, do not even come up to the level recommended by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

The paper presented by the Department to the tax strategy group recommended payments in order to fulfil the commitments made under the programme for Government, the revised national anti-poverty strategy and the PPF. The increase recommended for old age pensions was €13.20 while that given by the Government was €10; that recommended for the lowest rate of unemployment payment, including supplementary welfare, ranged between €10.10 and €15.40 while that given by the Government was €6; and that recommended by the Department for child benefit was €31.59 while that given by the Government was €8.

A Government which is not even prepared to implement the level of increases which its Departments recommend is one which is miserly with the poorest of people, but that is not all. It would be one thing if those who received the increase were allowed to keep it but, of course, they are not because many of those on social welfare are in local authority housing. Social welfare recipients in local authority housing may hear on the news that they are to get €6 extra in the budget and they might say "hurrah" to that. However, their local city or county manager then revises their rent and €4 or €5 is immediately whipped from the increase.

For those not in local authority housing and paying rent in private housing, the Minister decided to exercise a claw-back.

Mr. Treacy

That is common sense.

Mr. Gilmore

In the rent allowance regulations which she introduced before Christmas, the Minister increased what is called the personal contribution made by recipients of rent allowances by €4.36 per week. For example, a person on the lowest level of social welfare payment got a €6 increase in the budget but the Minister for Social and Family Affairs takes back €4.36 in the personal contribution to the rent allowance.

In reply to a Dáil question last week, the Minister told me that there are 55,000 recipients of rent allowance. That is a lot of people paying back to the Minister €4.36 per week for each of the 52 weeks of the year. The Taoiseach, his Ministers and the Members who support the Government are fond of coming to the House and talking in millions of euro every time an issue is raised; yet here are a few millions to ponder. There are some 55,000 paying back €4.36 per week in personal contributions to their rent allowance. Over 52 weeks, that comes to some €12 million the poorest people are paying back to the Government.

Mr. Treacy

Deputy Gilmore wants to inflate rents and drive up house prices. That is some social policy.

Mr. Gilmore

That should be compared to the tax take from the bloodstock industry or from any of the other sheltered, well-off areas of Irish society this Government refuses to touch. In addition to capping the amount which can be paid, the Minister introduced a provision in the regulations she made prior to Christmas whereby a rent supplement cannot be paid where the rent exceeds—

Mary Coughlan

The CWO, on whom the Deputy relies, must not have read the circular.

Mr. Gilmore

The CWO is not involved. The Minister signed the regulations to which I have referred. They provide that a rent supplement shall not be payable where an amount of rent exceeds the appropriate maximum amount of rent as determined under paragraph (g) of sub-article 2. Take the case of a person in rented accommodation who loses his job, his rent is in excess of the limit set down by the health board and now capped by the Minister. In theory, the person becomes eligible for a rent allowance, but on application to the community welfare officer he will be told that no rent allowance may be paid. He can be advised to seek cheaper accommodation, but this does not take account of the fact that the person's home is involved.

The Minister cannot advise on the effect of these regulations. While she can advise on the number in receipt of rent allowance, she has indicated that figures are not available as to the number of cases where a reduction in the amount of supplement occurred or where an applicant failed to meet the qualification criteria. Although the regulations were introduced before Christmas the Minister is unable to advise how many will be affected.

The regulations were apparently introduced to impose a control on rent increases. However, in practice tenants whose rent exceeds the rent allowance get the appropriate form from their community welfare officer and gets their landlord to enter on it the amount, which coincides with the cap. Rent allowance is then paid on that basis. However, a separate arrangement between the landlord and the tenant means the tenant pays a higher rent.

These regulations will have to be changed because over time increasing numbers of people will be told they are not entitled to a rent allowance. This trend will accelerate as job losses rise on a weekly basis. Many of those affected who are in rented accommodation probably never considered that they would need recourse to an allowance. They will now be told by their community welfare officers that they will be liable for the full rent imposed on them. If the penny has not dropped yet with the Minister, the consequences of these regulations will become apparent and she will have to amend them. I urge her to act sooner rather than later before she puts tenants, community welfare officers and health board staff in an impossible position trying to enforce an impossible regulation.

Mr. Broughan

The Minister made extravagant claims about the additional social welfare budget of €530 million. She did not tell the House that the budget for 2003 is effectively a cut of 50% in the budget available to her predecessor in 2002. In view of this, her speech in this debate was fatally flawed.

The Minister referred to the Government's achievement in increasing social welfare expenditure for 2003 to over €10 billion. However, according to EUROSTAT figures, Ireland is at the bottom of the league of European Union and OECD countries in terms of expenditure on social protection. The Minister has become a smiling face for the imposition of major cutbacks in social welfare and protection. My colleague, Deputy Gilmore, dwelt on her vicious attack on the rent supplement and her attempt to cap it. Overall levels of social protection are lower than what is required and all the figures indicate that society has become more unequal.

Over recent years attempts have been made to establish a basic minimum income for all citizens. The Bill deals with specific changes. One or two of them are welcome but I am unsure about a couple of others, especially with regard to pensions. An attempt should be made to amend these on Committee Stage.

The overall provision for the significant part of society dependent on social welfare income is not helped by the two Bills introduced by the Minister. Her predecessor promised to introduce a Green Paper, a White Paper and legislation on the question of a basic income. During his term as Minister he waltzed the CORI organisation and others around their proposals without introducing any fundamental reform. We are still waiting for the Government to seriously address income deficiencies in this society. It was to be hoped that the targets agreed under the PPF would at least have been approached. Deputy Brendan Smith referred to the achievements regarding the provisions for senior citizens under the Bill introduced before Christmas.

However, the Senior Citizen's Parliament, which emerged from a SIPTU initiative, set as an initial target a basic income of 40% of the average industrial wage for senior citizens on contributory and non-contributory pension. It then agreed on a target of 34%, yet the Government is struggling to reach a target of 30%, despite the previous Administration's much vaunted target of an old age pension of at least £100 per week. It has not attempted to seriously address the imposition of a basic income for senior citizens, never mind for those on lone parent incomes, assistance schemes and the other benefit schemes, including long-term sickness and invalidity pensions. The Minister has no intention of addressing seriously the issue of income. The Government has calmly ignored the various contributions of CORI and others.

I wonder why the community platform, the third part of our economy, would sign up to another national agreement given that one of its most basic requests, which is for basic income for all citizens or at least a living income of perhaps 30% of average industrial earnings, has not been taken on board seriously by the Government. The section that refers to child benefit involves an absolute breach of trust with the social partners, as the Minister well knows. We thought we had a three year programme under which child benefit would increase by at least £25 over the three years. However, the Minister has recently announced a miserable €8 increase for the first two children. A fundamental promise by the Government to have a basic income for our children over three years, which I thought it made in the context of partnership, has been cruelly abandoned.

The Minister's speech is a great deal of bluster in terms of its being able to address the key issues of people on low income. She has implemented some significant cutbacks. The data we receive from the Combat Poverty Agency and ESRI in its survey of 2000 indicate that the income divide in our society is widening. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

My colleague, at the outset of his speech, referred to the levels of payment that now obtain under the social assistance and social insurance funds. Many people, such as those on long-term unemployment assistance, find it outrageous to be asked to live on €24.80 per week. That is the basic income in society, and a miserable €82.80 is allocated for an adult dependant. The previous Minister made some significant promises in relation to adult dependants, but they have not been adhered to this year because we had a rise of only €4. The basic €6 rise across social assistance was an insult to approximately 1 million people who depend primarily on social welfare for income.

Carer's allowance is currently €129.60 and the non-contributory pension is €144. This is the tenth occasion on which I have had the privilege of being able to comment on the Social Welfare Bill in this House. The levels of income offered this year are derisory and insulting. This is a major issue which the Government should address, but the Minister has paid little attention to it so far.

I agree with Deputy Smith's comment that the contributory pension for the under-80s of up to €163.70 is still a relatively low income. It does not approach the basic targets that have been set by many of the organisations working for and representing senior citizens.

There are a number of problems regarding pensions which my party shall address on Committee Stage. So far, the Minister has not succeeded in addressing the key issues facing social welfare recipients, and because she is highly regarded in the House I urge her to fight radically for decent increases for such people.

Mr. Haughey

I wish to share my time with Deputy Cooper-Flynn. I congratulate Deputy Coughlan belatedly on her appointment to ministerial office. Unfortunately, she became a Minister at the same time that financial resources were becoming scarce. Nevertheless, her practical, but caring and compassionate, approach has already been evidenced and I wish her well in her endeavours. The package of measures announced in the budget concerning social welfare was good in light of the circumstances.

Child benefit is being increased to €125.60 for each of the first two children and to €157.30 for the third and subsequent children. The Minister is pursuing a similar approach to that adopted by her predecessor in that child benefit increases are being used to tackle child poverty in a direct way. In addition, the child benefit system is being used to help parents with child care expenses. I agree with the approach to child care. It ensures that both the stay-at-home parent and the parent working outside the home are treated equally, which I welcome.

The respite care grant is being increased to €735 per annum and to €1,470 for carers looking after two or more children. I also welcome this measure. Since 1997 a wide range of measures has been introduced to improve the position of carers, 13 major changes in particular. At the end of 2001 there were 18,800 carers in receipt of the carer's allowance, which represents an increase of more than 104% in the number of carers receiving it since the Government took office. The scheme is being improved each year and this year is no exception.

There are demands to abolish the means test with regard to the carer's allowance. Although that is something we should strive to achieve, it is not practical in the short-term given the resources of the State. However, I welcome the measures introduced each year pertaining to the income disregards to allow more people to qualify. I urge the Minister to continue with that approach.

The Bill extends entitlement to six weeks' payment following the death of a person in receipt of certain social welfare payments to the surviving spouse or partner who is receiving a payment in his or her own right. I congratulate the Minister on this initiative. Sometimes the system can be bureaucratic and unresponsive to the realities of life. The social welfare system can, at times, appear to be callous. A bereavement is very stressful for people and can result in many additional expenses. Therefore, this measure is welcome and represents a move in the right direction.

Has the Minister any plans to re-examine the PRSI classes? As a public representative, I receive complaints from self-employed people who run into difficulties and find they are entitled to very little despite the fact that they have paid heavily into the PRSI system. Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the various classes? Presumably, they are based on an historical evolution and it may be time to re-examine them in the interests of all potential social welfare claimants.

The national fuel scheme assists householders on long-term social welfare and those in receipt of health board payments who are unable to provide for their heating needs. The fuel season runs for 29 weeks between 1 October to late April. I regularly receive complaints from constituents which relate to the non-payment of the fuel allowance during unseasonably cold or wet weather outside that time period. This is a difficult problem to solve given the unpredictability of the weather, but there is a case to be made for extending the fuel season in light of recent experience. Doing so would alleviate the hardship experienced by these claimants which is why I hope the Minister will look on the proposal favourably. Exceptional needs payments, facilitated through the supplementary welfare system, are not the answer which is why a review of the national fuel scheme should be carried out.

I support the section which provides for entitlement to rent supplement. The Bill provides that for new applicants rent supplements will be payable only where the claimant is lawfully resident in the State. Meeting the accommodation needs of asylum seekers will now be the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the direct provision scheme. This is sensible given the changes made by the Minister, Deputy McDowell, with regard to refugees and asylum seekers generally and the provision will be welcomed by the community as a whole. It ensures a co-ordinated approach to these matters by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the health boards.

Members of this House face complaints about the entitlements of refugees and asylum seekers from their constituents and our role in combating racism is not appreciated. At least once a week, a constituent complains to me about refugees and asylum seekers being granted supplementary welfare to buy cars. I draw their attention to the reply to a parliamentary question by the then Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on 26 February 2002. In that reply the Minister said he was aware of rumours circulating to the effect that asylum seekers and refugees were in receipt of payments from the social welfare system to which citizens are not entitled. Items mentioned included cars. The Minister pointed out that the rumours were untrue and without foundation and he agreed with former Deputy de Rossa, who asked the question, that they were being used to promote resentment against asylum seekers and refugees. He was glad to refute the stories.

The Minister's points cannot be restated often enough and I am happy to reiterate them. Constituents regularly complain about perceived advantages granted through the social welfare system to refugees and the role of Deputies is to explain the facts. That role should not be underestimated, but rather appreciated by the media and others.

I praise the Minister for her work in relation to the family. She has encouraged research into family break-up and she has provided financial support for counselling services. There are major pressures on families in modern society and the Minister and her Department are attempting to deal with and research them. Practical measures are being put in place to help families overcome the difficulties they face. On foot of the budget, the Minister has introduced a good package of measures in relation to pensioners, widows, widowers, carers and child benefit recipients. In view of circumstances, she has done extremely well and I urge her to continue to honour the commitments outlined in the programme for Government.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

I join colleagues in congratulating the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, on her appointment as a member of Cabinet. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this Bill which brings to €10 billion the total spent on social welfare.

The changes to rent supplement provisions have proven to be the most controversial aspects of the legislation. We must look at the capping of rent levels from the Minister's perspective. The Minister is concerned primarily for the applicant who has to claim rent supplement in the first place. Her provisions aim to protect applicants by ensuring that they do not find themselves in desperate financial circumstances by paying more than they can afford to. I listened to Deputy Gilmore cite a particular case during his contribution. He referred to the possibility of job loss by persons who are paying rent which is over and above the levels set by the Minister. The Bill provides that the community welfare officer has discretion to provide additional assistance in the circumstances he outlined. I compliment the Minister on that. In practice many landlords charge exorbitant rents to people who can ill afford to pay. The health boards set the level of supplement and pay the allowance accordingly, irrespective of the actual rent, which means that the tenant is hurt. Even in smaller towns, landlords are charging very high rents in these circumstances which makes things extremely difficult for young families. I support the Minister's initiative, the success of which will only be revealed in the fullness of time. We must recognise that her motives are correct.

I support the provisions in section 13 which address the payment of supplementary rent to asylum seekers. It is important to make this the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Rent supplement should only be made available to persons living lawfully in the State, but I recognise that there are exceptions to every rule. This is addressed in the legislation through the inclusion of elements of discretion and flexibility in terms of the operations of community welfare officers. Perhaps this is an area to which the Minister will refer when she makes her concluding remarks.

I compliment the Minister on the resolution of the dental dispute. This is a clear example of the Minister's attempts to protect PRSI contributors by ensuring that they are not abused by being forced to pay exorbitant fees for dental services.

I am delighted that this dispute has finally come to an end and that service can now return to what it was before. I ask the Minister to examine the situation where people have received dental treatment over the past 12 months while this dispute was ongoing. Unfortunately, our teeth do not wait for disputes to be settled. People needing emergency dental treatment during the dispute have run up considerable bills. Like other public representatives, I have received numerous representations from people who have incurred dental bills during the last year. A person pays PRSI and expects certain benefits from the scheme and dental treatment is one of those. Whether or not there is a dispute between the Irish Dental Association and the Department should not concern people who pay their lawful PRSI contributions. I ask the Minister to examine that situation to see if there is any way of compensating those people who have incurred very necessary dental expenses in the past year.

I have listened with incredulity to some of the former Democratic Left, now Labour Party, Members talking about what this Government is doing for the old age pensioner. We all remember when Democratic Left was part of the rainbow coalition Government. We presumed that at least the social welfare recipients would be given great benefits under that Government. We sat in disbelief when the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, announced the lowest ever percentage increase for social welfare recipients. We will all always preach the good news from our own side of the House—

Mr. Durkan

That is true and we know it well.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

Deputy Durkan is waking up again.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow Deputy Cooper-Flynn to proceed without interruption, please.

Mr. Durkan

I am trying to recall a time when the Deputy did not make history.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Durkan, allow Deputy Cooper-Flynn without interruption.

Mr. Durkan

She upset me, a Cheann Comhairle.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

In fairness, a Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Durkan feels a little bit vulnerable in this area and I understand that. If the Deputy says nothing, I will not draw attention to the fact that he was the Minister of State at that Department.

Mr. Durkan

It is no harm to remind the Deputy that there have been considerable increases in taxation since that time when 1,000 jobs a week were being created.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

If the Deputy continues to speak, I will be forced to highlight the fact that he was a Minister of State at the time.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, Deputy Durkan, allow Deputy Cooper-Flynn to continue without interruption.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

I was going to go easy on Deputy Durkan and not point out his own inadequacy in that regard.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy need not go easy on me at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Durkan, you will have an opportunity to contribute shortly.

Mr. Durkan

I hope so, a Cheann Comhairle.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

I thought the Deputy was asleep but at the very mention of this very thorny subject for himself he has awakened and I am delighted. It is the awakening of the sleeping giant.

Mr. Durkan

I am a sleeping giant.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

The track record of Democratic Left on this issue was appalling when they were in Government. Of course Government Deputies will always compliment their Ministers on any improvements but do not ask us, ask any pensioner over the past number of years. The commitment given by Fianna Fáil to the old age pensioners in 1997 was honoured in full and we all received the benefit of it in the last general election.

Mr. Durkan

The pensioners are getting angry.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

I have no doubt that our commitment to old-age pensioners in An Agreed Programme for Government will be honoured over the term of this Government. I compliment the Minister for continuing in that vein. Any society that is not prepared to look after the older people who have contributed over the years is a very negligent one. I am pleased to see this Government is not negligent.

I am delighted with the very significant increases in child benefit over the past few years. I am personally pleased because this year I am receiving it for the first time. These benefits serve a very useful purpose in the provision of child care. It is very important not just to the working woman but also to the woman who decides to stay at home to look after her children. I welcome the very significant increases, particularly the rate for the first two children which has increased by €8 per month and for the third and subsequent children by €10 per month. These increases are included under section 3 of the Bill and bring the monthly rates to €125.60 and €157.30, respectively.

I have written to the Minister and to her predecessor about a situation of which I have heard at my clinics. A woman paying PRSI for 18 years gave up her job to stay at home with her children. As she chose to leave her job, she was unable to avail of the 15 months' PRSI payments. Had she lost her job and been unemployed, she would have received the benefit of those 15 months payments. When a person has contributed over a significant period of 18 years, it is very hard that they do not receive any benefit from their social insurance contributions. I ask the Minister if anything can be done for women who stay at home to look after their children. I understand that there must be consistency across all these measures and that is the reply I received in the past. I would appreciate if the Minister could examine the case again.

I welcome the improvements for carers in the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

I welcome the improvements in respite care introduced in the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider the abolition of means testing for carers.

Mr. Ferris

I wish to share my time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Gogarty. Not long after the recent election, my party colleague, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, received a telephone call from a woman to whom it is no great exaggeration to refer as one of Ireland's unsung heroes. Her name is Margaret Hoffman from Boyle in County Roscommon. She rang in tears of frustration and hurt because she is a member of one of the most ignored and undervalued sections of Irish society; she is a carer. She takes 24-hour care of her son, Daniel. She is not paid for holidays, nor does she get any holiday. For herself and her husband, after whom her son is named, every single week is a struggle, every bill through the door is a source of fear and almost every night is sleepless with worry.

In a letter she wrote to the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, Margaret asked why the formula for the means test does not take into account essential outgoings such as rent, mortgage, medical expenses, insurance or a car loan. Without a car she would not be able to take Daniel to his various and numerous medical appointments. She asked the Minister how she can justify a carer's allowance of €5.30 per week for an adult providing full-time care. I ask if that is the value the Minister places on the work Margaret does. She asked the Minister to justify the means test. She reminded the Minister that an end to the degradation and humiliation associated with the means test was promised in election campaigns and budget negotiations by successive Governments. All this Government has done is increase the weekly income disregard by a few euro. I am sick and tired of the tinkering around at the edges of the means test by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. It is unfair, unjust and it must stop. There should be no more fiddling about with income limits. The Minister should get rid of the means test now.

The most shocking part of Margaret's story is yet to come. Her allowance was cut from €62 to €5.30. The Department of Social and Family Affairs took money from this woman. It is one of the worst cases I have ever heard of. This Government will give her an extra €7 per week which will bring her income to €12.30 per week. She provides 24-hour care for €12.30 per week. There are thousands of people in this State who earn more in one half an hour and the Minister and the Members of this House are part of that number. This is not a unique case. Year after year, the Carers Association asks for the means test to be abolished and successive Governments have failed to do so.

There are 100,000 carers and the overwhelming majority are women. They have had to fight every step of the way to gain even the most basic entitlement from successive Governments. I ask the House to imagine the terrifying vista that would unfold in our health service if these men and women did not do the work they do. Every year they save the Exchequer hundreds of millions of euro. The top rate VHI scheme allocates €70 a day for people convalescing in medical homes. That is €490 a week. In one week VHI provides more support to a patient than the Minister for Social and Family Affairs provides to Margaret for a year.

Margaret, and other carers, make an enormous contribution to the State but receive, perhaps, the least recognition for it. In their pre-budget submission the Carers Association said the Department of Social and Family Affairs continues to regard the association as a system of payment for carers who need income support. The Government should recognise the work these people do and reward them properly for it instead of treating the allowances like income support.

I ask the House and everybody here with a conscience to recognise the role of carers and to recognise the discrimination of the implementation of the means test on carers.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the debate today as this Bill provides for the introduction of a range of social welfare improvements announced in budget 2003. Any increase in child benefit or the respite care grant is a step in the right direction but we need to do more for people. We are discussing the welfare and well-being of all our people. This must be an important part of any strategy to deal with poverty and social exclusion. It is a pity this Bill does not deal head on with the major problems of society.

Section 3 of the Bill provides for increases in child benefit as announced in budget 2003. The increase is €8 paid in respect of the first and second child and €10 in respect of the third and subsequent children. These increases come into effect in April 2003. They are low and come nowhere near meeting increases in inflation or child-rearing costs. Is the Government living in the real world? There is a reduction in living standards, particularly since the increases in fuel, ESB and transport costs.

Many of us demanded an increase in the qualifying adult allowance to cover inflation but the Government only gave €4. This is a disgrace and shows clearly the direction the Government is taking in looking after its people. The income threshold for the family income supplement, FIS, should have been raised by at least €39 per week. The Government gave €17, less than half the amount required to maintain the living standard of below-income families. The Government ignored the request to raise the current rates of child benefit allowance to a single rate of €25 per week for each child. This has led to consistent erosion in living standards of the poorest households in the country. The rich-poor gap has widened and child poverty is a scandal, with over 400,000 children affected. In Ireland 2003, there are 400,000 children living in poverty. Many boys and girls go to school in the morning without proper clothing or meals or turn up late because of family crises.

This is what we are trying to deal with when discussing the social welfare Bill. This Bill is an example of how our society is drifting to the right. It is against the gut instinct of the majority of people who would have no time for right wing politics. Of course, we all know from where the Government is coming, particularly when we look at election figures. We do not look after the 38% of our poorest people who do not vote. Instead we tap into the affluent and middle classes in society. It is important to point out that the 38% who are constantly excluded are the same people who do not vote. I call on them to get involved in the democratic process, otherwise nothing will change.

Last year we had the debate about the Bertie bowl and now we have the new debate about the Bertie bird, the new jet costing €41.6 million.

Mr. Durkan

There are three of them.

Dr. McDaid

Will Fine Gael sell them back again?

Mr. F. McGrath

This is another example of the use of public funds which could be channelled in other directions. I am an optimist and I believe things will change, as has happened in Venezuela and Brazil. Ireland needs leaders with guts, vision and determination who will look after the weaker section of society. The formation of the Technical Group is a response and puts down a clear marker of the way forward. In discussing this Bill we are standing at a crossroads and must decide which way to go. We can go back to the old stale policies of Thatcherism or go the route of caring for people. I challenge our media commentators on this, particularly those in the Sunday Independent who seem to be taking sideswipes at politicians who want to create a more caring society.

Dr. McDaid

The Deputy is in opposition because he has no vision for the future.

Mr. F. McGrath

My vision was the reason I was elected in Dublin North-Central. The Deputy got it wrong on the peace march and is getting it wrong again. This Bill should be about compassion and welfare but it is not. Section 4 provides that the increase in the annual respite care grant, payable to recipients of carer's benefit and carer's allowance, will be paid in June 2003. Why is it delayed until then? Why can it not be paid now? The sum of €735 is a small price to pay for a carer caring for one person. This is caring on the cheap and is not acceptable. The carers of the country are saving the State almost €2 billion and we offer them €735 a year. This is a disgrace and a national scandal.

Over the past seven years we had a glorious opportunity to end poverty. This Bill makes no serious provision for the weaker sections of society. I have no alternative but to vote against legislation which only reflects the greed of a Government which does nothing concrete for the people. Last week we saw one of our largest banks make a profit of €1.4 billion. We must face the reality that some people are making huge profits while weaker sections of society are on waiting lists. It is time to shift some of the wealth from the greedy to the needy. This will mean a more equitable taxation system and a new type of social welfare Bill. It will mean radical change and tough decisions in the interests of ordinary people. It will mean legislation must have teeth to deliver real change and it will mean that all of us have to change. I accept that. We need a new radical type of civic republicanism which will make the Bill relevant to the people.

The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003 should be about change. It should be about looking to the future and developing strategies to wipe out poverty, end homelessness and improve our education service and the quality of life for our people. This Bill is not about welfare and there are no real social changes for society. Cutting back today will mean major damage in the future. Investing €1 now would return four times that in the future. That is not just economic but common sense. I urge everyone to reject this flawed legislation.

Mr. Gogarty

What I have to say about this Bill could be said in a sentence. It is absolute bull and of no benefit to the people. However, I will use the time available to me to make a few pertinent points. I live in the real world and do not often get the opportunity to speak in the House so I reserve the right to make comment when it is due. Before Christmas, when I first spoke on the Social Welfare Bill, I pointed out that the 9% social welfare increase for pensioners was meagre compared to the pay rise of Deputies to whom I sent a letter asking them to make some form of joint submission to the Minister for Finance forgoing our October pay increase in order to send a message of solidarity in recognition of the fact that we were living in tighter times.

Mr. Cassidy

There is a provision that allows individual Deputies to refuse an increase.

Mr. Gogarty

Only one Deputy, apart from my Green Party colleagues, even bothered to reply – Deputy Finian McGrath.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Did the Deputy refuse it?

Mr. Gogarty

The point I am making is that it did cause some debate at the time and I spoke about it on local radio.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The Deputy should not lecture us. Did he refuse it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please. Deputy Gogarty, without interruption.

Mr. Gogarty

I would gladly refuse it.

Mr. Cassidy

Did the Deputy take the money?

Mr. Gogarty

Yes, I did.

Mr. Cassidy

God help the Deputy.

Mr. Gogarty

No more than anybody takes the money when he or she is not paying tax.

Mr. Cassidy

What an example.

Mr. Gogarty

Why else do we have a tax system? We have one because people are intrinsically greedy, which is why we tax them. I am as greedy as anyone else but if we did it together, we would not suffer. When I spoke on radio about this small gesture we could have made, a Fianna Fáil Deputy, who refused to be named, rang Midland Radio and said: "The Deputy is a little bit naive, sure he will learn eventually. Sure is it not a seven day a week job we do?" I could not disagree with him. It is a seven day a week job, except when we have holidays—

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The Deputy has obviously learned already, he accepted the money.

Mr. Gogarty

I gave the Deputies a chance to make a few comments. Will they now, please, shut up?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please. Deputy Gogarty, without interruption.

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy should not be giving us the benefit of his inexperience. He took the money.

Mr. Gogarty

When the Fianna Fáil Deputy spoke to me about the seven day a week job, I pointed out to him that a person providing respite care was also working seven days a week.

Mr. F. McGrath

Absolutely.

Mr. Gogarty

They do this all year round with the possibility of perhaps two weeks off.

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy took the increase.

Mr. Gogarty

The provisons in the Bill for the respite allowance are meagre. The provisions for the most vulnerable in society are also meagre while we, fat cat Deputies, carry on with our great allowances.

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy took the money.

Mr. Gogarty

I suggest that the Government needs to live in the real world. The Deputies are not brave enough to put the Social Welfare Bill before the people in a general election.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I cannot believe the Deputy has the audacity to stand up and say that when he took the money.

Mr. Gogarty

I respectfully suggest that a referendum be held on a tax increase of 2 cent to find out if the people want to see investment in education, health care and public transport, all areas that require investment which the Government will not provide. If it had the guts, it would hold a referendum to find out what the people really need.

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy should not be giving the House the benefit of his inexperience.

Mr. Gogarty

The people were deceived before the general election. In my capacity as spokesperson on education for the Technical Group I listened to every Tom and Dick, Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Deputy running around and beating their breasts about how the money would be invested in school building projects. We then found the money was not there.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

It is the Deputy who is beating his breast and lining his pockets at the same time. He has defeated his argument.

Mr. Gogarty

That is a huge deception which is being continued by telling people that money will be available in 2004 when it is being announced in 2003. We are talking about bull of the highest order.

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy took the increase.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. Gogarty

I would prefer to have debate rather than discourse, for which I have called before.

Mr. Cassidy

What about consistency? Both Deputies Gogarty and Finian McGrath took the money.

Mr. F. McGrath

What about the "Bertie bird"?

Mr. Gogarty

This is unlike the soliloquies of the British Parliament where members take turns to speak. If the Deputies wish to get involved in an engaging debate, they should say something meaningful rather than sniping at someone—

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy took the increase.

Mr. Gogarty

—who suggested making a gesture to which they did not even have the guts to reply. I call that rudeness of the highest order.

Mr. F. McGrath

Absolutely.

Mr. Gogarty

We need ongoing investment in transport infrastructure to help with tourism. We also need to ensure the most vulnerable in our society have access to such infrastructure. If one looks at the more disadvantaged areas of my constituency or in south-west or north County Dublin, it is clear that the most vulnerable have been placed in such areas. They have to contend with an inadequate public transport system and are given meagre resources. The further delay in the extension of the medical card affects them hugely. All this leads to the continuation of a ghetto society. If one does not always have access to a decent meal at home, even the best run breakfast club will not facilitate one staying in school throughout the primary and second level cycle.

I would have liked to have seen some meaningful benefits provided in the Bill that would enable those within relative and absolute poverty traps to get out of them. The Conference of Religious in Ireland – I know this is being dealt with in the context of redress – has consistently stated – the Green Party agrees with its policy – that there is a need to provide a guaranteed basic income for every man, woman and child in society in order that people can have access at an equal level while still promoting the notion of enterprise.

The Green Party has often been castigated by the Deputies opposite and their Progressive Democrats cohorts. They say: "The Greens are fine. They are idealistic but wait until you see their economic policies." Investment in environmental efficiency actually saves money. The Government should take a leaf out of the Greens' book and invest in some environmentally friendly initiatives. The savings could be put towards investing in a better, more equitable social welfare system, certainly one far better than what is suggested in the Bill. I thank the Deputies for their interruptions in what has been a most interesting debate.

Dr. McDaid

Deputy Durkan might like to come over to this side of the House.

Mr. Andrews

I wish to share time with Deputies Cassidy and Batt O'Keeffe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Andrews

It is a pity that Deputy Finian McGrath is heading off.

Mr. F. McGrath

I will stay.

Mr. Andrews

I do not wish to provoke the Deputy into staying but he made some comments which I wish to address. In particular, he said the vast majority do not support right-wing parties. I know what he means by right-wing parties. He is sitting in the seats of what he would call a right-wing party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Chair.

Mr. Andrews

I apologise, a Leas-Cheann Chomhairle. It is my view that 85% of people at the last general election voted for what Deputy Finian McGrath would refer as right-wing parties, although I would refer to them as other than that. It is his hope and the hope of many opposite that we will be able to propagate a left-right divide when it is patently obvious that this will never happen. We have a growing middle class and a shrinking working class. There are many people with more means than before. It is a shame to treat the House to such revisionism as most of what he said was fair and reasonable.

The Deputy should also remember that there was a different march of 100,000 people in Dublin some 20 years ago. People then marched because they wanted taxation to come down. It has done so but the new parties coming into the Dáil are telling us that we have to put it back up again. They have clearly learned nothing from the past 20 years during which we addressed the fundamental problem of an excessive tax burden on society.

Mr. Gogarty

Will the Deputy return the compliment by taking a question?

Mr. Andrews

They want to start all over again with taxation and borrowing as though 17 May 2002 marked the first day of politics in this country. The Deputies opposite should read a little more about these issues. Deputy Finian McGrath forgot about the levy in the budget that will raise money directly from the banks.

The figures in regard to poverty being bandied about by various Deputies are inconsistent. Deputy Crowe who spoke on behalf of the Technical Group said there were 340,000 living in poverty while Deputy Finian McGrath referred to a figure of 400,000. That loose grasp of facts suggests that Opposition Deputies will continue in opposition for a long time until they can convince the people they understand economic conditions and can grasp such basic figures.

The Social Welfare Bill is to be commended to the House. In particular, I welcome section 5 which provides for greater child dependant increases. These continue up to the age of 22 years which clearly is welcome to those trying their best to stay in education. The Government is committed to ensuring third level education is more accessible. This is one way in which that commitment can be secured.

Many Deputies, particularly in the Fine Gael Party, lecture us about the effect special savings investment accounts are having on the economy. At the same time they claim inflationary effects are taking away from the benefits accruing under the Social Welfare Bill. These two standpoints are inconsistent. SSIAs have effected a control on inflation and ensured the full benefit of social welfare increases will accrue to those at whom they are directed.

The Minister has delivered another equitable step by extending the means test, as recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. The value of benefits such as free board and lodging is no longer regarded as means which is also to be welcomed. It is my hope the Minister will continue to decrease the age limit from over 29 to over 25 years. However, I am concerned that certain rent increases in the social housing sector are tending to take away from the benefits she hopes people will derive from the Social Welfare Bill. Next month in Dún Laoghaire rents will be increased. An increase in social welfare pensions reflects an improvement in a person's way of life which he or she is entitled to keep. It should not be taken away by another arm of government.

Deputy Haughey referred to section 13 which relates to asylum seekers. No other Deputy has referred to this section which deals with a very sensitive area skirted around during last year's general election campaign. The Minister has made a sensible provision. I hope we will watch the development of this situation in the coming months and years.

The pension scheme provisions of section 23 are an excellent example of a Department taking a proactive role rather than waiting until something becomes an issue. People are losing out through the weakness in the equity markets, although it may be dramatic to speak about the creation of time bombs for those who have invested heavily in pension schemes, especially equity and hedge funds. The Minister has been charitable, generous and far-sighted in making the provisions in section 23, even if they are technical.

For these reasons I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cassidy

I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate on the Social Welfare Bill. This is the second of two Bills which deliver a social welfare package worth €530 million in the budget of 2003 and, for the first time, bring the projected level of social welfare expenditure to more than €10 billion. Any fair minded person will see that from 1997 this increased from €5.7 billion to €10 billion and almost doubled the allocation.

Carers are the unsung heroes of our society. I compliment the Government on the successive budget increases and measures to develop the services and supports which provide practical assistance for them. It is continuing to honour its commitment to support the valuable work undertaken by them by increasing the respite care grant by €100 from €635 to €735. Carers looking after more than one person will receive a grant of €1,470, an increase of €200. We are told by the Minister that this will benefit 24,700 carers at a cost of €2.5 million.

As a matter of urgency, the Government should look into the cost of eliminating the means test for carers who make trojan sacrifices. Daughters often give up their careers to look after a parent who may be suffering from Alzheimer's or another disease. I know of many hardship cases of people who are not properly remunerated, although if the parent who is ill had to go into hospital, the cost to the State would be enormous. I would like to see this matter addressed in future Social Welfare Bills. I believe I speak for every Member of the House when I acknowledge the wonderful work done by those who care for their parents and continue the long tradition of sons and daughters showing their parents care and respect and repaying them for the sacrifices they made in earlier years.

I welcome the increase in child benefit. Increases of €8 for the first two children and €10 for the third and subsequent child are substantial. For the first two children the benefit is €125 per month and €157 per month for every subsequent child. A family with three children will receive €408.50 every month. The Ministers for Finance and Social and Family Affairs must be complimented on the wonderful increases they have given which are so richly deserved. These increases support families and are an acknowledgment by this caring Government of the contribution of parents.

I acknowledge the arrangements for the payment of social welfare benefits for six weeks after death which are designed to give transitional family support immediately following the death of a pensioner. The Minister has addressed a number of anomalies in section 7 of the Bill. I acknowledge her understanding in making this provision for those in receipt of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, invalidity pension, unemployment assistance, unemployability supplement, supplementary welfare allowance, pre-retirement allowance, disability allowance and farm assistance allowance. My family has been associated with the undertaking business for generations and I know this provision is most welcome and will be put to very good use. I compliment the Minister and the Government on this measure.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Having listened to earlier speakers I have concluded that the young and energetic Green Party Deputy speaks with a forked tongue. He lectures Deputies, yet he continues to accept the increased payment. There is much to be learned by that young man. He must learn that when one finds oneself in a hole, one should not continue digging.

The social welfare increases allowed for in this year's budget amount to €530 million. It would be useful to compare that with previous Governments. In its last budget the rainbow coalition gave an increase of €273 million. This year social welfare payments will almost double the level set by Fine Gael and Labour when last in Government. As a result of the changes made in last year's budget all social welfare weekly increases are paid from 1 January. That is a significant improvement on the previous position.

Mr. Durkan

There will be no lump sum in the month of May and we know why.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

As Minister of State, under Proinsias De Rossa, Deputy Durkan did not have much faith at the time and he meant well but the people had to wait for five months before they got anything.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy should tell that to the mothers of Ireland this year.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The House will know that all of the budgets introduced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, have been characterised by measures designed to improve the position of older people in society. There is no doubt that the elderly have been satisfied with what has happened. In 1997 we promised to increase all old age pensions to over £100 per week. That was done emphatically. At the 2002 election we promised to increase the State pension to €200 per week and over the term of this Government that will happen. In budget 2003 we were well on track to deliver on that because it has increased the full personal rate of old age pension by €10. People will have selective political memories. The Deputy opposite should be reminded that when the party of which he is a member was in Government—

Mr. Durkan

I do not need to be reminded about selective memories in this House. No affliction ever fitted a party—

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

—it gave pensioners a total average increase £2.95 per week. In contrast this Fianna Fáil Government has now given a massive €9.71 per week.

Mr. Durkan

That is an increase of €1.30 per day this year.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

In percentage terms the old age contributory pension increased by less than 10% under the rainbow Government whereas under Fianna Fáil the increase has been 59%. The figures speak for themselves. In monetary terms the statistics are even more stark. The effect of the increases under the Fianna Fáil-led Government is that the rate of old age contributory pension will now stand at €157.30 per week. That is a monumental increase on the €99 per week, which was the rate payable under the champions of social justice, under Proinsias De Rossa and the Fine Gael-Labour Government when in office. The increases in pensions this year are real.

Mr. Durkan

They are a real shock.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The old age contributory pension has been increased by 6.8%. This is well ahead of inflation and represents a substantial improvement in the living standards of older people. Our critics on the Opposition benches should explain why, when last in Government, the old age pension increases stood below the rate of inflation. On one occasion, as the Deputy opposite will recall, his Minister gave the price of a box of matches by way of an increase to old age pensioners.

Mr. Durkan

It will cost more than 1.5 cent—

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

In the budget 2001 the Government announced its intention to invest an unprecedented €1.27 million in child benefit over a number of budgets.

Dr. McDaid

The parties opposite were in Government in the good times.

Mr. Durkan

There were no triple jets that time.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

We achieved two thirds of that planned increase in the last two years. This year we are announcing an additional €105 million in a full year to increase child benefit even further. Child benefit rates will increase by €8 per month for the first and second child and by €10 per month for the third and subsequent children. Let us look at the comparisons in order that we can appreciate the scale of child benefit under Fianna Fáil in Government. It is worth emphasising that when we returned to Government in 1997, child benefit was payable at the rate of €38 per month for the first and second child and €49.52 for the third and subsequent children. Therefore, the increases and the priority which Fianna Fáil has attached to child benefit means that following budget 2003, child benefit will now be payable at the rate of €125.60 for the first and second child and at the rate of €157 for the third and subsequent children. These increases mean that in our period in office we have more than trebled the payment rate of child benefit. It is a record with which the rainbow Government parties cannot compare or compete.

This year's budget increases in tax credits, exemption limits and mortgage interest relief combined will take 37,400 taxpayers out of the tax net. One third of these taxpayers are aged 65 or over. In one year, Fianna Fáil has almost equalled the number of people removed from the tax net that the Fine Gael-Labour Government did over three budgets. As a result of the measures introduced in the rainbow Government's budget, 38,000 taxpayers were removed from the tax net in 1995, 1996 and 1997. We have beaten that record 11 fold over our budgets in that 417,000 taxpayers have been removed from the tax net.

If one looks at the 2003 budget even further progress has been made towards our intention to increase the tax entry point towards the level of the minimum wage. In this year's budget by increasing the employee take we have raised the entry point in the tax system for a single person from €209 to €223 per week. The progress Fianna Fáil has delivered in this area is highlighted by the fact that when we came into office the relevant entry point was €97.70. The entry point to the income tax system is now 90% of the current minimum wage. That is a feature that has to be lauded and recognised. Certainly it was recognised by social welfare recipients in the last budget when they knew exactly for whom to vote.

Mr. Durkan

They will know better the next time.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

In terms of the rent increases, mention has been made of the constraints and the fact that asylum seekers have been taken out of private rented accommodation. One could hold the view that by taking them out of rented accommodation and giving the responsibility back where it lies in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

—that it will serve to reduce rent increases because there will not be the same demand once the Department assumes sole responsibility in this area. In terms of rent supplement and the role of the community welfare officer, the time has come when we must examine in detail the role of the officer and ask whether local authorities should vet and give out rent supplements and mortgage supplements as against the health boards and community welfare officers. That is in no way to denigrate the contribution made by community welfare officers. If people are on a housing list, the housing inspector will have a far better perspective on the state of the house because the person will have visited that accommodation. They will know the circumstances of the family involved and will be in a far better position to judge the need for and the extent of rent supplement.

Mr. Durkan

After listening for the past hour or so I do not know where to start. The party opposite seem to have a particular problem with history in which it specialises. It selects the areas which are most benign from its point of view. I can think of a little history in which the Government may be interested. There used to be a sign on the Naas dual carriageway a few years ago. I cannot remember the precise year but Members opposite will remember it. It read, "Health cuts hurt the old, the sick and the handicapped." It was a simple message. The message portrayed to the general public was that the Government would put an end to that and would do what the public wanted if it elected them. Sad to say, and not for the first time, the public believed it and was hoodwinked.

Mr. Cassidy

There was no €1.30 there.

Mr. Durkan

What happened? The Government put into operation the proof that health cuts could hurt the old, the sick and the handicapped. To be doubly sure, it implemented the cuts in such a way as to hurt them as much as possible.

Dr. McDaid

How can the Deputy call an increase of €739 million a cut.

Mr. Durkan

To bring the history books forward, this time last year in anticipation—

Dr. McDaid

Can the Deputy count?

Mr. Durkan

I am surprised at the Minister of State getting upset because he and his colleagues know this. Approximately one year ago we had the budget, followed by the Social Welfare Bill and the Finance Bill. It contained proposals to create in the minds of the humble and sincere Irish public, who believed what they were told, that there would be a cheque in the post for them, including arrears of child benefit, arrears of old age pensions, arrears of everything they could think of, and the cheque would come in the middle of the election campaign, just in case the unsuspecting general public would forget about it or fail to associate it with what was intended.

Dr. McDaid

We were bringing it back to 1 January.

Mr. Durkan

It was sent out in the middle of the election campaign. The people thought the Government was a caring and very thoughtful one – how could it know what we require at this time? However, the poor unfortunate unsuspecting public did not know it was the last sweetener they would get, that the sting would come thereafter, and it came in a series of stings. The first one came in the first budget which was introduced after the general election. I have pity for the poor innocent Members across the floor, who are here for the first time. It is a good job I have pity for them, because no one else will have pity for them. I will tell them what will happen. The public is now about to wake up. They woke up when they discovered the VAT increases in the budget, insurance increases, increases in housing costs, cuts in supplementary welfare, rent allowances and so on, and suddenly people are thinking – these are not caring people at all. These are people who set out to con us, which they did. However, they will not do it anymore because the plug has been pulled. The public was warned that the Government jet would be replaced. We were told that the reason the jet needed to be replaced is because it was breaking down. It had flat tyres and jump leads had to be brought out on the tarmac in Mexico and so on.

Dr. McDaid

The Deputy has no idea about it. Will he make a commitment to get rid of it?

Mr. Durkan

I will tell the Minister of State about it. I know a little bit about aeroplanes. A certificate of airworthiness must be issued in respect of each aircraft over a particular period. During that period all aircraft under a certain age are absolutely covered. Two questions must be answered. Either the certificate of airworthiness was not issued, in which case the jet should not have been flying in the first place, or, it was issued, and the aeroplane broke down afterwards.

Dr. McDaid

It can happen.

Mr. Durkan

The point is that it cannot happen because a strict regime is applied when issuing a CAW. If a CAW, which applies to all aircraft, is applied, the aeroplane will fly for the appropriate number of air miles, and it will not break down afterwards. That is the whole basis for the CAW. If the Minister of State wants more information about the CAW, I will give it to him later.

Dr. McDaid

Something can happen to it.

Mr. Durkan

It does not happen two or three times if the CAW is done right. The sad thing is that the poor unfortunate public woke up this morning and found that this Government is doing things in style. It will not get one jet to replace the old jet, but three jets.

Dr. McDaid

That is not true.

Mr. Durkan

It is going to keep three jets in the air at the same time.

Dr. McDaid

That is not true. The Minister explained that this morning.

Mr. Durkan

I presume this is to impress all the other dignitaries we will be bumping into throughout the world over the next six or seven months. While all the other cuts are being implemented in regard to school buildings, access to hospital services, access to law and order services and funding for the gardaí, there are no cutbacks when it comes to accommodation in the sky. I ask the Deputies and Minister of State opposite to ponder a little and think about the poor humble people of Ireland when they are up there in high altitude, turning on the gold-plated taps, or gold taps, when the new showers are operational in the new aeroplanes. They should think about the people who cannot gain access to hospital services or get a hip replacement.

Dr. McDaid

Will the Deputy give a solemn commitment that he will get rid of the jet when he returns to Government?

Mr. Durkan

They should think about the children in substandard schools in Donegal who are told by the Government that it is sorry, €40 million must be spent this year on a vital issue, an item of vital national importance – a couple of Government jets.

The patience of the Irish people has often been stretched in the past, but never to this extent.

Mr. Cassidy

What about 65% tax rate under Garret Fitzgerald?

Mr. Durkan

Never in the history of the State were three Government jets required. This is about to become known as the three jet Government. It is the first time in the history of the State that we require such a facility.

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy seems to be an expert on jets.

Mr. Durkan

I will compare the €40 million required with the needs of carers. I agree with Deputy Cassidy and others that, of course, carers must be catered for because they are providing a service to the State. They are providing a service in lieu of which significant expenditure would have to be undertaken by the State, so why not give it to them? Why not increase the number of carers throughout the country? There was an opportunity to do it. The Government could have done with a smaller jet. It does not need one as big as the oil sheikhs. It could have a little one to take people here and there as needs be. In terms of benefit to the economy and alleviation of hardship—

Dr. McDaid

How many times has the Deputy flown in the jet?

Mr. Durkan

I was never in the Government jet and I was never in an aeroplane that was not paid for in the normal commercial way.

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy was a frequent flier.

Mr. Durkan

I was a frequent flier. Furthermore, I learned to fly at one time and I know a little bit about it. If Members want to learn more about it, I will tell them more about it. I want the Minister of State to consider his options. The Minister could have helped the carers. He could have provided more money and done with the old jet for another while.

Reference has been made by Members to the extent to which the increases, or otherwise, in social welfare payments this year have cushioned the public against the impact of inflation. If Members opposite will think back seven, eight or nine years, they will find that jobs were being created at the rate of 1,000 a week. The economy was going well, all the fundamentals were in the correct trajectory and going in the right direction. One can blame 11 September for what has happened since, but what is actually happening now – the public is aware of this – is that the Government is saving up for the next general election. Having sat down after the last election, it thought it was a great success, it almost made it by pulling off a massive stroke.

The Government has now decided to pull a second stroke by way of cutbacks and saving as much as possible in the hope that the public will not realise what is happening, and, lo and behold, a week before the next general election arrears of child benefit will be paid. Payments will be flowing in letterboxes throughout the country. There will be increases in old age pensions to beat the band. People who are not even old age pensioners will get increases through their letterboxes. It will only be at that juncture that the public will question when it last got such increases. Members of the public will then realise the sting facing them and that the last time they received such handouts was immediately before the general election. They will work that out for themselves.

Mr. Cassidy

What about the world economy?

Mr. Durkan

I would not like to be a Government backbencher or front bencher when the public realises that. The public is patient and one can cod it for a while but I would not bet on codding it a second time. I issue a friendly warning to my colleagues opposite.

Mr. Cassidy

The Deputy should be a script writer for Disney.

Mr. Durkan

I issue a public health safety warning to my colleagues opposite. They should be careful that they do not irk the public a second time.

Dr. McDaid

Deputy Durkan has been saying that for years. Fine Gael is nearly a protected species.

Mr. Durkan

I am deeply concerned about Members opposite because I would not like them to walk lemming-like over a cliff without a warning.

Change for the people at present comes in the form of a letter from a health board stating that it is sorry but that new guidelines have been introduced in regard to the rent supplement and that it will only pay up to a certain amount. When the unfortunate tenant tells the health board that they cannot find a house to rent at that amount, the health board says it is sorry. As a result, people will have to sleep in the open air. I do not exaggerate when I say I have come across cases in the past 12 months where young women and their children have slept in the open air because there was nowhere for them to go. Members opposite can talk about Government jets as often as they wish and about how much has been done by this Administration and how little was done by previous ones but unless somebody opposite recognises the injustice being done to people in these circumstances, the marches they have seen in the past will be nothing compared to those they will see in the future.

I refer to medical card guidelines. If one earns €180, one does not qualify for a medical card. I have dealt with cases of widows and widowers who find themselves in an awful position when they receive a letter from the health board outlining the guidelines. The income limits have been kept artificially low. Members on the Government side know what I am talking about because their constituents will have shown them evidence of this. I cannot understand why Government backbenchers and frontbenchers have not risen up and rebelled and asked that something be done about the guidelines.

I mentioned the VAT increases which affect everybody, be they old age pensioners, widows or widowers. Transport costs increased in the budget and, as a result, have eroded any social welfare increases.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Durkan

I laugh when the parties opposite, which are entering their seventh year in power, look back to before that time by way of response. I hope the public is not as angry as it is now when they go to the electorate because if it is, there will be changes. There will be a number of vacancies on the Government side. It is in their interests to try to do something now. They should not be too cynical and try to save money at the public's expense in order to pour it out in the weeks before the general election because the public will not buy it.

Reference was made to rent assistance and rent allowances in lieu of local authority and other housing. The record of this and the previous Government in this area is abysmal. Never in the history of the State have there been so many people on housing lists for so long and living in such awful circumstances. Relationships and marriages have broken up before those concerned have been able to get a home. In some cases, people have been on housing lists for seven or eight years before even being considered for a home.

In the meantime, rent allowance is being provided in lieu of housing which costs the Exchequer somewhere in the region of €100 million to €150 million per annum. This is being repeated year after year. The money is going to landlords, yet there is no resolution to the housing crisis. Nothing is being achieved and it is a waste of money. Instead of spending this money on rent allowances, it would have been far better to put it towards reducing the numbers on the housing lists by a certain number each year. The Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, knows what I am talking about and agrees with me, although I do not expect him to say so here. It is a disgrace that so much money is spent subsidising rent at a time when it is possible to provide housing. We must remember we had a booming economy for the past number of years but all that happened during this boom was that the number on the housing lists got bigger.

One thing which has changed is that the question of security of tenure has gone down the river. In the past few days, somebody boasted that the old fashioned wish of the Irish to have a semi-detached house is gone and that apartments and continental style living are the future. I would not bet on that.

Dr. McDaid

Some 35,000 houses were built last year.

Mr. Durkan

The 35,000 houses were bought by investors and financial institutions and they are rented to unfortunate people who are stuck in a poverty trap and cannot move forward or backward. The Government, through the Department of Social and Family Affairs, Department of Health and Children and the health boards, is giving them a pittance so that they can survive. It is a waste of money and the sooner the Government realises that, the better. Although this has been going on for seven years, I cannot understand why nobody recognises what is happening. We live in a society which is hugely encouraging to investors and financial institutions but which is hugely discouraging to people on housing lists.

The majority of people on housing lists would gladly and willingly house themselves if given a chance and would buy a house.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Mr. Durkan

I should have concluded earlier but so many things upset me. I see how vulnerable Government backbenchers are in light of what is likely to happen to them when the public wakes up to what is being done to it. I will reserve judgment for a future occasion by which time I hope the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, and the backbenchers opposite will be able to rise up and rebel in support of what I have said.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

I wish to share my time with Deputies Kelly and Callanan.

Deputy Durkan is always a hard act to follow when in full flight, whether in a small, medium or large aeroplane. His concern for Government Deputies is touching in the extreme. It gives us all a warm glow in the cardiac area.

Mr. Durkan

As long as it's not a chill.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

We will keep the chill away for a while. Deputy Durkan referred to carer's allowance. The Government provided for an increase in the annual respite care grant payable to recipients of carer's benefit and carer's allowance in the budget. We have, over successive budgets, introduced measures to develop the services and supports that provide practical assistance to carers. By introducing this measure, we are maintaining our commitment to support the valuable work undertaken by carers. The new rates for the grant which will be payable from June are €735 where the carer looks after one person and €1,470 where the carer looks after more than one person. This measure will benefit 24,000 carers and will cost an additional €2.5 million per annum.

My primary interest in the debate is the Minister's role in the resolution of the dentists' dispute. She has promised an early independent review of the dental scheme. The independent chairperson should examine the cost base of dentists because it is cheaper to have one's dental work done in Northern Ireland than here. What additional costs are faced by dentists in the Republic compared to their counterparts in the North? How can dentists in the North deliver at a substantial discount a comparable service in terms of quality, care and technical ability to that which is provided in this jurisdiction?

The independent chairperson should also examine the role of ancillaries and technicians in dentistry. For example, denture work could be done by properly trained technicians at a fraction of the cost of the service provided by fully qualified dental surgeons. A case has been taken in the courts by a dental technician who has breached the dental Act. The Ministers for Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs and the Irish Dental Council have sought to block him from providing a service to the public.

Mr. S. Ryan

Is the Minister not prepared to take on the vested interests to help that man and the public?

Dr. Fitzpatrick

Ministers are always slow to upset the status quo no matter who is in power. However, I welcome the agreement of the Irish Dental Association to display a price list for dental fillings, setting out the private patient and PRSI patient fees. This will provide for greater transparency. Basic preventative dental treatment, including examination, scale and polish, will remain free. The Department will pay a 10% increase in its fees to dentists and dental treatment fees, where relevant, will increase by 10% for PRSI patients. This takes effect from the date of this agreement and includes the increase due last year.

The Bill legislates for an increase in child benefit. The Government announced its intention in the 2001 budget to invest an unprecedented €1.27 billion in increased child benefit payments over a number of budgets. Two thirds of the planned increase was achieved over the past two years. This year the Minister for Finance announced an increase of €105 million in a full year in child benefit. The Bill, when enacted, will result in child benefit rates increasing by €8 per month for the first and second child and by €10 per month for the third and subsequent children. Given the priority the Government has attached to child benefit, the increase in the 2003 budget will mean child benefit will be payable at the rate of €125.60 per month for the first and second child and €157.30 for the third and subsequent children.

The Government launched the national children's strategy in November 2000 in an effort to improve the quality of services to children. The strategy, which ensures the voices of children are heard, has been praised by the United Nations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Kelly

The Bill provides for the introduction of a range of social welfare improvements announced in the recent budget and a number of additional proposals approved by Cabinet. It legislates for increases in child benefit and the respite care grant, taking effect in April and June, respectively, at a cost of €104.83 million in the case of child benefit and €2.5 million in the case of the respite care grant in a full year. The Bill also extends child dependant allowances for certain children of recipients of short-term social welfare payments as provided for in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and it provides for changes in the means test for certain social assistance schemes and includes PRSI measures announced in the budget.

The legislation amends the Pensions Act 1990 to strengthen the powers of the Pensions Board to allow it to respond, on a case-by-case basis, to schemes which find themselves in funding difficulties on foot of the current equities downturn. There has been much comment recently regarding the uncertainty surrounding pensions generally in light of the exceptional fall in global equity markets. The impact of this decline poses sharp but, hopefully, short-term problems for many employers and pension fund trustees who may have difficulty meeting the funding standard under the Pensions Act 1990.

Other provisions in the Bill include the extension of a special allowance currently paid to social welfare pensioners aged over 66 who are living on islands and recipients of invalidity pension, disability allowance and unemployability supplement. It takes effect in April and the allowance will be €12.70 per week. The legislation also extends entitlement to six weeks payment following the death of a person in receipt of certain social welfare payments to the surviving spouse or partner who is receiving a payment in his or her own right.

The Bill provides for the abolition of the assessment of benefit and privilege for people aged 29 and over who claim unemployment assistance and pre-retirement allowance payments and amends the rules governing entitlement to rent supplement. With regard to new applicants, rent supplement will be payable only where the claimant is lawfully resident in the State. This means that certain non-EEA nationals, including asylum seekers, will not be entitled to rent supplement after the commencement date of this provision. In future responsibility for accommodation for asylum seekers will be the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the direct provision scheme.

The conditions for receipt of supplementary welfare allowance are also being amended to align it with the entitlement conditions that apply to unemployment assistance as appropriate. The Bill also provides for amendments to the definitions of "reckonable earnings", "reckonable emoluments" and "reckonable income" in order to facilitate the introduction of non-cash remuneration into the PRSI code. The application of PRSI to benefits-in-kind was announced in the budget and is due to take effect from January 2004.

Only last week the Minister for Social and Family Affairs authorised funding of €150,000 for the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed towards the cost of maintaining and developing a welfare to work service and the publication of an information booklet, Working for Work. Her Department has funded the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed for more than ten years. Funding commenced in 1992 with a grant of £15,000 and increased to more than €146,000 last year. This year's funding consists of €123,000 for the welfare to work service and €27,000 towards the publishing of the booklet Welfare to Work. The INOU's welfare to work service aims to help long-term unemployed people enter the economy by providing a confidential one-to-one information and advice service. The booklet Welfare to Work complements this service. It is intended that 25,000 copies will be distributed this year and that it will be made available on the Internet.

The social welfare system seeks to be comprehensive in addressing social need and fair, consistent, simple and cost effective in its administration. I was interested to read in recent days that Deputy Rabbitte favours a wealth tax in certain circumstances as an alternative to increasing income taxes to pay for improvements to health, education and transport services. In his speech to party members in Dublin last week setting out his vision for the future of the Labour Party, the leader stated that the new stresses and strains in a more wealthy, more unequal and better educated society have pulled Fianna Fáil onto the side of those with wealth, property, power and influence. That is garbage. Fianna Fáil has always had more working class support than the Labour Party. We are a populist party, we represent everybody not just specific interest groups. It galls me to listen to ill-informed rubbish such as this.

I joined Fianna Fáil to represent everybody in my county and country. I am not on the side of the wealthy. Ireland is now one of the most prosperous countries in Europe and Fianna Fáil played a major part in that. The country has prospered over the past five years with GDP per capita increasing substantially. People have reaped the benefit of a strong, progressive partnership Government with Fianna Fáil at the helm. Much has been achieved for Ireland since June 1997. This Government has been responsible, during the last five years, for the most sustained and significant strengthening of the Irish economy. For the first time in our history we have come close to full employment. The policies we have implemented have supported the creation of 370,000 extra jobs positioning us among the top countries in terms of global competitiveness. We have worked to achieve unprecedented investment in disadvantaged areas and RAPID programmes benefit 165,000 people across the 25 most deprived urban neighbourhoods. We introduced the largest ever increase in pensions. The old age contributory pension is now payable at €147 per week, an increase of almost 50% since Fianna Fáil took office.

We introduced new integrated strategies to tackle homelessness and a ten year national children's strategy to improve the quality of life for children. It should also be remembered that an important part of the social welfare administration is based in Longford. I thank the management and staff there. I welcome this Bill and look forward to another four years of Fianna Fáil-led social partnership and Government for all the people of Ireland.

Mr. Callanan

I welcome the Bill which provides for increases in child benefit to €125.60 for the first and second child and €157.30 for the third and subsequent children, costing an additional €105 million in a full year. This compares with rates of €38.09 for the first and second child and €49.02 for third and subsequent children in 1997. This, in any man's language, is a significant increase and means child benefit has trebled in that period. I am delighted the Government was able to provide it.

There has also been a substantial increase in old age pensions from €99 to €157.30 per week. The increase in the annual respite grant to €735 for a carer looking after one person and €1,470 for a carer taking care of more than one person are also welcome. It shows that this is a caring Minister. The disregard of the first €420 of a spouse's income for the purposes of obtaining the carer's allowance is to be welcomed. I have promoted this issue for a number of years. The increase in this area will allow more people to qualify for the carer's allowance. Carers should be given due recognition for the wonderful job they do. This Government is working hard to achieve that.

I would like to see the introduction of the proposal under the health strategy whereby home-based subvention will be paid to people at home. This would give people the choice of remaining at home rather than going into nursing homes. Many people would prefer to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Implementation of home-based subvention would permit them to do so.

Another change which I especially welcome is the abolition of the assessment of benefit and privilege for people over the age of 29 claiming unemployment assistance. I hope it will remain so in future budgets. I have always felt that the payment of reduced benefit to an unemployed person living at home was wrong. This system drives people from their family homes. They end up obtaining rent allowance at great cost to the State.

I am delighted to be a part of this Government which is taking care of the elderly, carers and the children of Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. S. Ryan

I wish to share time with Deputy McManus.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGinley)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. S. Ryan

When speaking on the Social Welfare Bill in December last I stated that the 2003 social welfare package was an utter disgrace. I gave examples of unemployed couples with one child who would receive an actual increase of 25 cent per week. A person on unemployment assistance in receipt of the lowest level of payment in social welfare will receive €6 per week – 30 cent per week or 4.25 cent per day after inflation is taken into account. An unemployed single person with one child would be worse off in real terms taking projected inflation into account.

The Minister took umbrage at my highlighting these hidden facts. Two months later the situation is even worse. The consumer price index has shown significant increases in food items such as potatoes, cheese, minerals and fruit, all of which are so important for families on low incomes. In addition, we have seen the price of public transport, electricity and gas heating also increase significantly in this period. In recent weeks substantial increases in local authority rents have further eroded social welfare increases.

I wish to put on record the thoughts of people living in poverty as recorded in Against All Odds: Family Life on Low Income produced by the Combat Poverty Agency. Quotes include: "It always comes back to finance. This determines what kind of lifestyle you have. It can even determine whether your marriage survives or dies"; "The message is be rich and you'll be looked after, be poor and you won't be looked after"; "I told them if I had a cheque book, you'd have me in straight away and the doctor says its not like that, but it is let me tell you"; "It's worse financially. I've the same money but it's not going as far. The weekly shopping is costing more for less."

I share the sentiments of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, a voluntary organisation which is doing invaluable work on the ground for people in need. Once again the most vulnerable have their living standards reduced, their access to adequate housing, education and health care shelved in what they are told is the interest of our economy, while at the same time those with money, power and influence have their privileged position protected. We have been told time after time by Ministers since the general election that money is scarce and it is not possible to do all we would like or all they promised. This has been the excuse used to justify lower than expected social welfare increases and the Government's failure to provide money to tackle shocking conditions in many of our schools and the appalling problems we face in the health service.

One of the reasons money is scarce and is going to become even more scarce over the coming years is the total recklessness shown by the Government and the Minister for Finance, in particular, in introducing the special savings incentive accounts. The Minister totally ignored the advice of the officials in his Department who warned that this scheme would be very expensive. He deliberately understated the cost when questioned about it in the House, suggesting that it would cost approximately €127 million per year. The full potential cost of the scheme is only now becoming apparent. The Minister, in reply to a parliamentary question yesterday, admitted to my colleague, Deputy Burton, that the full cost of the scheme was now €535 million per annum. This means, over the five years of the scheme, the total cost to the Exchequer will be in the region of €2.6 billion. This is only half the story. Many participants are still entitled to increase the amount they contribute every month. If they do, the total cost will be well over €4 billion. This is very close to the entire Estimate for the Department of Social and Family Affairs for this year. I do not blame people for opening an SSIA – I have such an account. One would have been mad not to do so as one was being offered money for nothing.

Mr. Cregan

Members of Fianna Fáil do not have accounts.

Mr. S. Ryan

I blame the Minister for Finance and his colleagues for the utter recklessness they have shown and their refusal to admit to the full cost of the scheme. Everybody knows that it has nothing to do with encouraging savings or reducing inflation, as it is part of Fianna Fáil's long-term political planning. It is no coincidence that most schemes will mature in 2007 when it is expected that the next general election will be held.

Mr. Curran

It is just good luck.

Mary Coughlan

Deputy Ryan will be able to use the scheme to fund his general election campaign.

Mr. S. Ryan

Fianna Fáil has calculated that voters will receive a large lump sum a few weeks or months before they go to the polls and believes it will get its reward on polling day. It has something coming to it as it has mortgaged all our futures.

Mr. Curran

Some did not get in on time.

Mr. S. Ryan

Section 4 provides for an increase in the annual respite care grant paid to recipients of carer's allowance. This will provide a modest increase for approximately 20,000 carers, less than one in six of the total figure. Those who benefit will receive €129.60 per week, even though each carer saves the State at least €400 per week. Is it any wonder that carers are angry about the Government's lack of recognition of their role in society?

Life expectancy has increased as a result of medical advances and many more with chronic illnesses and serious disabilities need to be cared for. Family carers in the home are expected to provide the bulk of care for the chronically ill, the disabled and dependent older persons. At least 33,000 with dementia have to be cared for, with 3,500 with multiple sclerosis, 5,500 with Parkinson's disease, 20,000 adults with intellectual disabilities, at least 5,500 who use wheelchairs and between 2,500 and 3,000 who have strokes each year and need constant care as a result. The role of the carer has historically been defined by tradition, culture and religious factors incorporating ideas of self-sacrifice, duty and acceptance but such attitudes are changing. Those who want to care for their loved ones are becoming increasingly angry at the lack of recognition, services and supports they receive.

There seems to be an erroneous perception that carers are always other people. We are all potential carers as we cannot tell when, or if, we will experience the emotional, physical or financial effects of caring for a loved one struck down by an accident, illness or the effects of old age. Only in the event of such circumstances will we recognise the effort needed to provide proper care 24 hours a day, 52 weeks a year. It might be prudent to put in place a proper community care service for old age or in case we are struck down by unexpected illness. Carer's allowance should be realistic to provide carers with the means to care effectively, not just a reallocation of social welfare money for those on low incomes, as it appears to be at present. Carers should be seen as professionals providing care in the community. Their work should be fully acknowledged and remunerated.

The ability of carers to continue caring and cope with life when caring ceases depends on having interests other than caring. Time off is necessary to help them to develop outside interests. They need to be able to devote time to other members of the family. While respite care is important, the Government has failed to provide suitable respite care provisions that acknowledge the role of carers. It has neglected to look after the thousands of carers who do a substantial job. On the basis of the arguments I have made, there is no way my party can support the Bill.

Ms McManus

I am sure Deputies are familiar with the scene in Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist in which the orphan has the temerity to say, “Please, sir, I want some more”. The official response was to expel Oliver from the workhouse for daring to ask for more gruel after, in the words of Dickens, “he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary”. One might imagine that such attitudes belong in the past but I have to ask myself if that is the case having listened to this debate.

The coalition has defended its record on poverty for years by referring to the concept of "consistent poverty" but I wonder if Members know what is meant by the term. It is worth being aware of how consistent poverty is defined. The test that determines whether one is said to be living in consistent poverty is based on one's answers to questions about eight key items. Can one afford new, not second-hand, clothes? Can one afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day? Does one have two pairs of strong shoes? Does one have a warm, waterproof overcoat? Can one afford a roast joint of meat or its equivalent once a week? If the answer to any of these questions is "No", one is defined as living in consistent poverty. One is also asked if one had to go without a substantial meal any day in the last two weeks, if one had to go without heating in the last year due to a lack of money, or if one has experienced debt problems, or availed of charity, to meet ordinary living expenses. If one answers "Yes" to these questions, one qualifies as living in consistent poverty.

The questions I have listed comprise the test the Government sets itself and, as we can see, the bar is not set very high. The test does not refer to meeting transport costs, purchasing a newspaper, having a telephone or enjoying the occasional pint. Such luxuries do not count as the official test refers to more basic matters such as a warm, waterproof overcoat, two pairs of strong shoes and a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day. Is the Government saying that is its definition of poverty? Are Deputies claiming that to be poor in a country which counts itself as one of the richest in the world one must have only one pair of shoes or no shoes at all? Are we really saying the poor are always with us but we are not always with them? Is one defined as not poor if one is wearing an overcoat? Is it right that someone who eats supper two days in a row is deemed to be exceeding "the supper allotted by the dietary"? Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are telling the people that this is the case.

Mary Coughlan

No, we are not. The guidelines cited by the Deputy are those of the Economic and Social Research Institute which is independent of the Government.

Ms McManus

They were agreed as a measure and are being used by the Government as such.

Mary Coughlan

Yes.

Ms McManus

It is a fact. The Minister cannot dispute that inequality has increased during the lifetime of the Government and its predecessor. The ESRI's research has shown that the number below relative income thresholds was often higher in 2000 than in 1997. The percentage of persons living on less than 60% of median income increased from 18% to 22% between 1997 and 2000.

The Government is seeking to deny the fact that it has increased the gap between the haves and have nots. It is a fact that seems to particularly upset the Taoiseach who is trying to promote a culture of contentment that does not leave room for such unpleasant matters. Despite the fact that the Government is deeply right-wing, he is not prepared to face the consequences of a right-wing ideology. He is a deeply conservative politician – his conservatism is a traditional one – and offers no vision of society. He is content to peddle the notion that progress means a few bob extra for everyone, which was not difficult to deliver during the boom, and football on the television. He is not interested in radical ideas of social change or greater equality. He has made no serious attempt to tackle the structural problems at the core of poverty and social inequality. He has done his best to ensure the rich get richer and is content that the poor have stayed at the bottom of the economic pile. He has widened the gap between the rich and poor who must wait even longer for change now that it is more difficult to find extra funds. However, the urge to spread contentment compelled him to make promises about tackling poverty which were clearly outlined in the paper submitted by the Department of Social and Family Affairs to the tax strategy group. The promises the Government made and the type of increases in social welfare required to deliver on them were listed in the paper in the finest Civil Service tradition.

The promises made were a con trick; they were made to be broken and were. In the revised national anti-poverty strategy the Government committed to increase the lowest rate of social welfare to €200 per week in 2002 terms by 2007. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats repeated this assertion in their election manifestos and stated it again in An Agreed Programme for Government. However, they utterly failed to make any real progress towards it in the recent budget. It is bizarre that they have made the same commitment again in the new social partnership agreement. It is clear from the Bill that there is no intention of delivering this time either.

The tax strategy group paper states that for the Government to meet its commitments under the revised national anti-poverty strategy the lowest rate of social welfare should be increased by €10 to €15 per week – the increase granted was €6. To meet its promise on pensions, an increase of €13.02 should be granted but only €10 was delivered. At election time much political mileage was made from the programme's increases in child benefit. The electorate was promised an increase of €31.59 per month but got just €8. The only record the Government has on poverty is one of broken promises.

Mr. Cregan

That is not true.

Ms McManus

Once again the Government is trying to pass off the same old line. The national anti-poverty strategy promise made before the general election was dumped at the last budget. It has now been dusted off and offered once again to the community and voluntary sector like a child who wants to stay up late and promises to keep his room tidy forever more. When the community and voluntary sector understandably balked – it is important to listen to voices from the sector as it is not just the Opposition which is saying this – at this insult to its intelligence, the Taoiseach sought to browbeat it into signing up to the agreement. He has made it clear that membership will have its privileges but non-membership will be as cold a place as he can make it. No one is to be allowed to challenge the culture of contentment.

Those on the lowest rate of social welfare will gain a mere 30 cent per week from the budget after inflation is taken into account. A one parent family will be worse off by 8% per week, even when the increase in child benefit is taken into account and on the basis of the Government's inflation target which may yet be exceeded. Despite this, Government backbenchers come to the House to defend the Bill. They must be out of touch with the reality of their constituents' lives.

Mr. Curran

We are not out of touch.

Ms McManus

Deputy Ardagh had the effrontery this morning to wrap himself and the Government in the 1916 Proclamation and declare that the Government was cherishing all the children of the nation equally. The children going to school hungry in my constituency and others would not agree.

Deputy Rabbitte yesterday outlined the increases in Government levies, charges and prices which affect families across the country. These charges apply to rich and poor alike, making no distinction for the circumstances of those asked to pay. For example, a deserted wife with six children came to see me yesterday. She receives €240 per week and pays €40 in differential rent and increased electricity and gas bills and prescription charges.

Mary Coughlan

She is getting more than €240.

Ms McManus

She is getting €240 and told me that every refuse bag she had to buy for herself and her six children cost her €4.80. How can such a woman be expected to face the stealth taxes and increased charges hitting her on a daily basis?

Mr. Curran

What about the increase in her child benefit?

Mr. S. Ryan

Is that the response?

Ms McManus

Deputy Curran should get real. I ask him to live as a lone parent with six children for one week and try to pay the household bills this woman must pay. He would then understand what I am talking about and appreciate how far away the Government is from the reality of people's lives as they try to cope with levels of poverty that have got worse rather than better.

Mary Coughlan

What are county councillors doing? This is a local government decision. There are huge facilities available for the lady concerned.

Mr. Dennehy

I would like to share my time with Deputies Cregan and Curran, by agreement.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dennehy

There have been a number of contributions on the Bill, including from a number of former Ministers who expressed worries about various groups which needed help. The obvious thing would be to ask those contributors how they performed during their time in office and what the results were. If the record is looked at, it might be said some would need a brass neck to come to the House to criticise the current programme.

Mr. Ring

The Deputy has plenty of that.

Mr. Dennehy

Deputy Durkan referred to a number of issues. He said Government Deputies were only dealing with history but then went back about 20 years for an election slogan. He also said the people were fooled and that they would not deliver again. I must ask him about 2002. Is he suggesting that the electorate is totally brainless? If so, he should say so clearly and specifically.

Mr. Durkan

The electorate was conned.

Mr. Dennehy

The House got the greatest dissertation ever on aircraft during discussion of the Social Welfare Bill. Deputy Durkan also referred to cheques coming in in January, February and March which is an important item of which to take note. It was one of the key reasons for the collapse of the rainbow Government, though I had not realised until this evening that the Deputy was one of the relevant Ministers. One of the key reasons for that Government's fall was the suggestion that all social welfare payments should be delayed until October of the year they were granted. The Deputy criticised cheques coming in ten months earlier than that.

The Government has made one of the most costly but one of the most welcome changes in social welfare. There was criticism when Deputies or others got pay rises because they got them immediately. At the same time, measures introduced in a budget might not be paid for perhaps two or three months. However, the last budget announced by the rainbow Government extended this to the end of the year – a ten month difference.

Deputies Gogarty and Ferris and others were worried about carers and what had not been done in that regard during the years. Deputy Finian McGrath made a fair point when he discussed funds being channelled in other directions. I accept that money was diverted to other channels. For many years the country suffered because money that should have gone to carers and other needy groups went on minding banks, post offices and the Establishment State. Millions of pounds of taxpayer's money which should have gone to build up the infrastructure of the State and facilities for the needy was wasted. It is now being paid for. For the past six years the Government has been playing catch up in many areas. However, the money was diverted. The country was practically wrecked, economically and otherwise, for 20 to 25 years and a price was paid. I will not take lectures from those who say money was not put into the right areas during the years. It was put not where I would have put it but where it had to be put.

The Minister has put the greatest amount ever into social welfare. I am worried the public will not appreciate the size of the social welfare budget which now stands at approximately €10 billion. There is a tendency to take figures like this for granted. The extra money provided is needed and welcome.

I ask the Minister to provide a breakdown of the number of transactions undertaken by the Department. They amount to tens of millions. The Department is critically important and does a good job. In addition to the unprecedented increases in funding over the past five years, there have been big innovations in the IT area. Most Members were elected more than five years ago. At the time the biggest difficulties in the Department involved delays in providing money because of form filling and old styles of administration. That has changed and the Department is now up to date. The Minister and her predecessors are to be congratulated for this, as are the staff who are probably the hardest working in the public sector.

The essence of the left of centre ideology is to spread wealth equitably. On this criterion, the record of this and the previous Fianna Fáil-led Administration makes them the most left of centre in government in the history of the State. The Bill marks another important step in the Government's aim to create a prosperous and equal Ireland for all. I am pleased to commend it to the House.

Mr. Cregan

I welcome the Bill which differs from the previous five Social Welfare Bills to the extent that more money has been made available to the most vulnerable in our society, despite what has been said by Members on the other side of the House. It may be some time since the Fine Gael Party had a Minister for Social Welfare but Members of the House on the left had a Minister in recent years who, to his credit, delivered an increase of €2.95 in child benefit.

Mention has been made of broken promises. Every promise made in the Fianna Fáil 1997 general election manifesto was delivered.

Mr. Ring

They were not. What about the promised increases in child benefit?

Mr. Cregan

It included a promise to increase old age pension to £100 per week which was surpassed. The Fianna Fáil manifesto for last year's general election gave a commitment that it would be increased to €200 per week. It will be achieved.

Members on the other side of the House rightly pointed out that the general election manifesto promises would not be implemented in the first year of the Government's term of office. Every game of football takes 70 minutes and no game is won or lost in the first five. The Government's promises will be implemented and at the next general election the public will again vote for Fianna Fáil to return to government.

Mr. Ring

The people are waiting to vote the Government out of office.

Mr. Cregan

Is the Deputy suggesting that the people behaved foolishly and ignorantly when they returned Fianna Fáil to power? They returned my party on the basis of its record in the previous five years.

Mr. Ring

During the general election campaign Fianna Fáil stated there would be no cutbacks, hidden or otherwise.

Mr. Cregan

Fianna Fáil was also returned to power because there was no credible alternative Government. I look forward to the next four Social Welfare Bills to be introduced by the Minister. I compliment her for securing extra funding in her negotiations with the Minister for Finance at a time when it was very difficult to increase budgets. Most of her ministerial colleagues had to accept cutbacks and reductions in spending.

I also compliment the Minister on taking issue with the European Commission over difficulties involving post offices acting as agents for social welfare payments. To his credit, Deputy Ring promotes the importance of rural post offices. I am proud that the Minister is taking the lead on this issue. I wish her well in resolving this dispute and hope rural post offices will continue to act as agents in the delivery of social welfare payments, especially to old age pensioners and those who have no access to public transport who depend on their post offices in providing them with their payments.

Much has been said about the resolution of the recent dental dispute, about which concern has been expressed on the Order of Business on a number of occasions. To her credit, the Minister has been patient in her approach to the dispute. She has succeeded in resolving it and in so doing has ensured PRSI patients will have a proper and full service. I welcome this.

I also welcome the doubling of grants for hearing aids for vulnerable elderly persons. Thousands will benefit from the expanded medical appliances benefits scheme operated by the Department. A payment of €700 will be made in respect of one hearing aid which will double to €1,400 if a second is required. In the absence of aids those affected have a poor quality of life. In many instances these additional payments will mean that 50% of the cost of securing aids is covered.

The social welfare improvements provided for in the Bill will amount to €530 million in a full year. In the rainbow coalition Government's last year in office and with a Minister for Social Welfare from the left the total budget was €273 million. Social welfare expenditure has doubled since. As a result of the changes made in last year's budget, all social welfare increase were, for the first time, payable from 1 January. That is very important because in previous years payments announced in the budget were deferred.

We must rightly concentrate on old age pensioners who are the most vulnerable in our society. I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister. I am sure she will have the opportunity to introduce many more Social Welfare Bills with a view to improving the condition of the vulnerable, especially those in receipt of child benefit payments and carer's allowance.

Mr. Curran

I thank Deputies Dennehy and Cregan for sharing their time with me and welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. The improvements announced in the budget will cost approximately €530 million in a full year. As a result of changes announced then, all weekly increases have been payable from 1 January. The Bill provides for these improvements and a number of additional proposals approved by the Cabinet.

The contributions to this debate by Members on the other side of the House do not reflect the experience of my constituents. Deputy Gogarty of the Green Party, who shares his constituency with me, suggested that Members of the House accept pay cuts.

Mr. Ring

He did not take a cut himself.

Mr. Curran

Who is making the contribution?

Mr. Ring

Yesterday I tabled a parliamentary question related to pay. Deputy Gogarty did not take a cut. I call such people hypocrites.

Mr. Curran

I appreciate it—

Mr. Ring

I call it hypocrisy. Both Deputy Gogarty and a Sinn Féin representative were preaching to me on my local radio station. I challenge him—

Acting Chairman

Deputy Ring, please.

Mr. Ring

—to give it back.

Mr. Curran

Will Deputy Ring let me do the challenging?

Mr. Ring

My blood boils when I hear that kind of hypocrisy—

Acting Chairman

Deputy Curran, without interruption.

Mr. Ring

—and I have not got my hearing aid in or out at the moment.

Mr. Curran

The Deputy will get a grant for the hearing aid. Will he allow me the opportunity to do the challenging? I listened to Deputy Gogarty this afternoon making a speech in which he mentioned the number of Deputies who had agreed with him. If he believes in taking a pay cut, he should do so. There is nothing to stop him.

Mr. Ring

It is provided for in the Bill. He can do so.

Mr. Curran

If that is the best contribution the Green Party can make on the Social Welfare Bill, God help it. What difference would a pay cut make? It might effect a 5 cent increase in old age pension or a 1 cent increase in children's allowance. Deputy Gogarty should not enter the House any more to make such statements. If he believes in taking a pay cut, he should act on that belief. It is a right of each Deputy to do as he or she feels. The Deputy has the opportunity to deliver. It would be hypocritical for him to say he made an offer on which Deputies did not take him up.

The Bill provides for an increase in child benefit of €8 per month for the first and second children and €10 for the third and subsequent children. These increases bring child benefit to €125.60 for each of the first two children and €157.30 for the third and subsequent children. However, they should not be considered only in terms of this year's budget alone but in terms of the progress made on child benefit in recent years. It is worth noting that when Fianna Fáil returned to government in 1997, the rates of child benefit at the time were €38 per month for each of the first two children and €49.52 for the third and subsequent children.

Let us examine the issue in another way. I am a father of three young children whom I had in Leinster House this morning. In 1997 an average family with three children received a little over €125 in child benefit but will receive over €408 in 2003. That is real progress and the increases far exceed the rate of inflation. When the Opposition speaks of small increases, it should look at what the Government has done over a number of years. The increases are real.

The budget provided for an increase of €10 per week to €157 for recipients of old age contributory pension. Again, this figure needs to be viewed in its wider context. In 1997 the Government promised to increase pensions to €127 per week during its term in office. Despite comments to the contrary and other comments this afternoon, it achieved this. The 2002 election promise was that it would increase the figure to €200 per week during its term in office. I heard comments this afternoon that that would not happen but I believe it will and that we are on the road to achieving it.

Those who say the increases this year have been smaller than in previous years should note that the increases in any given year will always be proportional to what is available to the Exchequer. The economy is not as buoyant as it was in previous years but the social welfare improvements, as negotiated by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, are more significant than those of many other Departments.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has one minute left.

Mr. Curran

If so, I will conclude. I was a little distracted this afternoon listening to some members of the Opposition. I could have spoken for 20 minutes—

Mr. Ring

The Deputy should have taken out the hearing aid.

Mr. Curran

I should have given it to some members of the Opposition because it might have added clarity to what they were hearing.

Mr. Ring

I think all members of Fianna Fáil have hearing aids.

Mr. Curran

No, we do not need them. We are actually giving them, not taking them.

Every time I enter this Chamber a different Labour Party, Green Party or Sinn Féin Member, who call themselves the champions of social justice, seems to be berating the Government. We have been labelled Thatcherites by Deputy Rabbitte while Deputy Gogarty regularly distorts the policies and principles of Fianna Fáil.

I joined Fianna Fáil to campaign for social justice. It has always been a populist party which represents every social sector, not just interest groups. I represent a new constituency, that of Dublin Mid-West, comprising Clondalkin, Lucan, Rathcoole, Newcastle, Saggart and Brittas. I have lived all my life in the constituency and I am well aware of the needs of those living there. I am well aware of what affects them because it affects me also. Tackling under-investment and the poor provision of services in the area continues to be my highest priority. Fianna Fáil is the only party which has seriously tackled social inequality in the area.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I am sharing time with Deputies Healy and Joe Higgins.

During leader's questions this morning I raised an issue that has received very little attention and involves a relatively small sum of money. It is not under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, but I refer to it again because it typifies the mean-spirited, short-sighted and piecemeal approach of the Government when it comes to social provision. I speak of the decision by the Minister for Education and Science to axe the physical education and sports grant scheme for schools. A paltry sum, a mere €2.5 million, used to be allocated to primary schools to help buy sports equipment but it has been axed. The grant amounted to €635 for ordinary schools and €1,270 for schools serving disadvantaged communities. Now primary schools are without this pittance to encourage children to become involved in sport and physical exercise which we all agree is very necessary. I wonder how many in-flight jacuzzis one might buy with €2.5 million. This is a relatively small cut in the overall context but what is the effect? Schools in more prosperous areas will hardly even notice the difference but those more disadvantaged will certainly feel it. Poorer children will lose out while those lucky enough to come from more prosperous communities will, as always, be cushioned. This typifies the Government's approach to social provision in general.

Bad planning, the lack of proper priorities and a piecemeal approach are certainly very evident in the Social Welfare Bill. I am sorry that is the case but it has to be stated. It is a damning indictment of successive Governments, in particular the Government in office, that poverty is still so widespread after such a long period of unprecedented economic growth. Now that the economy has slowed down we are entering another era of cutbacks when, once again, the poor, the marginalised and the vulnerable are being asked to carry the burden.

The social welfare code and the Bill are supposed to address the needs of the economically disadvantaged. As demonstrated a short time ago, Members opposite never tire of boasting of their supposed achievements. The Minister and her colleagues can recite statistics showing the succession of increases in social welfare payments over the past five years. The statistics are facts which I accept but they are not put in context, as they should be. For instance, when the Minister quotes the increases, she does not mention the increase in the cost of living, especially in the past year.

Debate adjourned.