I wish to share my time with Deputy Moynihan-Cronin, by agreement.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation which is important to many families in each constituency. I bring to the Minister's attention the problems encountered by many applicants for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit when payment is stopped due to their lack of initiative in obtaining gainful employment. While everyone would obviously be pleased if 100% employment figures were achievable, such is not the case. When such payments are withdrawn applicants, many of whose cases I am aware of, do not know what to do — I presume this is similar to the experience of other Members who are contacted by such unfortunate people. No mechanism is available to these people to prepare themselves in applying for jobs. They arrive at clinics, usually with a pile of letters obtained from various employers in the area stating that no jobs are available. They feel this is the answer to their applications and that it will be acceptable to an inspector of the Department.
However, as far as I am aware from attending social welfare appeal hearings and from conversations with Department officials, such information is not acceptable and public representatives must then inform applicants of the procedures as they, the public representatives, understand them.
If one seeks employment, a CV is obviously required. In many cases, it is up to the public representatives to prepare a person in that regard and it is clear to such representatives when drawing up CVs that many applicants availed only of primary education. It is a basic problem that such unfortunate people do not have the education to advance themselves or to prepare a CV which is needed to apply for a job. It is in this context that public representatives notice the effect the back to education allowance has upon such people. Due to the current changes and the famous 16 cutbacks, they are deprived of the opportunity to return to education to achieve the skills they did not achieve when they had such an opportunity in early life.
Such applicants are not prepared in attending their local FÁS offices, Obair centres, resource centres or, as is the obvious move, in seeking advertised employment through the local press. During the period in which a public representative is preparing a case to try to get people into a position where they can apply for advertised employment, which seems to be the necessary criterion as decreed by the Department, no money is available to the applicants or their households. The applicants may not be able to supply food or the daily needs of their families and children. When they go to the community welfare officer, it is to be told that there is no payment available.
I have experienced this on numerous occasions and it is a total disgrace that the position has not been clarified and dealt with. Applicants are told by community welfare officers of an appeal mechanism through the local social welfare office which will allow an emergency payment to be made. However, when they go to the social welfare officer in their area, they are told no such payment exists. They are left in limbo. On many occasions when they visit their public representatives, they are sent to the local Society of St. Vincent de Paul or other charities, or representatives must try to provide funding to allow food to be put on the table.
I ask the Minister to deal once and for all with this problem, which has been ongoing in my area for the past five or six years. Similar circumstances arise in each case — the social welfare office and community welfare officer both state they are not responsible and, of course, the applicant and his or her family suffer. A mechanism must be put in place to ensure that unfortunate people cut off in such circumstances have a briefing session available to them or are brought before social welfare officers to allow them to appeal decisions and get interim funding while their applications are being processed.
They must also be prepared to make applications for employment, which is necessary in the context of the appeals process within the social welfare system. A mechanism should be put in place in that regard. Given the number of people who attend clinics in my constituency, this is a major problem which has not been addressed and, despite numerous questions to the relevant Ministers, there is no sign of it being addressed.
With regard to community welfare officers, a decision should be made to address cases where an emergency payment is due. Instead of a person having to walk from one office to another to find a community welfare officer, a mechanism should be put in place to co-ordinate this process between the Departments of Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs.
I have often praised the efforts of departmental employees and I reiterate that now, especially for appeals officers who seek to assist applicants with their cases. Nothing is sadder than seeing people lined up in an appeals office, waiting to prove to the appeals officer that they have sought employment. Often the problem is that there is no employment for them in their area and some of them do not have the education to seek alternative employment. They may have papers in their hands when in those offices, but often they have neither CVs nor direction from the Department. I appreciate the time and effort put in by appeals officers to help such people. Those efforts preserve the integrity and impartiality of the appeals system.
The savage 16 cuts attributable to the Minister surpass in number and effect the dirty dozen cuts of a previous Fianna Fáil-led Administration. I support the assessment of our spokesperson, Deputy Penrose, of the effect these cuts will have on many families and individuals.
One could speak at length about the hardship imposed by any of these cuts and I referred to the problems of the back to education allowance. I know of no person who would now qualify for the back to education allowance as changed by the Minister. It was difficult to get someone who was unemployed for six months even to think about going back to education but now it is impossible, and it is the Minister's idea which is responsible for the fact that no-one will go back into education. This provision should be removed from the Statute Book as it applies to no-one. No Member could say that he or she has filled out a back to education form for a person who made a successful application under the scheme.
I could go on. I appeal to the Minister to address the problems I have raised, which are being encountered by all Members dealing with applicants for social welfare.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill.
On a point of order, how did Deputies Wall and Moynihan-Cronin get called to speak at this time?
The note the Chair had was to call Deputy Wall for the next business after the vote, the Social Welfare Bill.
Deputy Wall was not in the House when this debate adjourned at 7 p.m. for Private Members' Business. Is it possible that he could be called to speak even if he was not in the House at that time?
The Chair goes on the guidance of the previous person in the Chair. I was not in the Chair myself at 7 p.m.
Deputy Perry had spoken for 20 minutes and now we are still on the Opposition side for another 20 minutes. That does not seem to be a fair procedure.
Deputy Haughey was caught napping.
No, I was here. Deputy Wall did not move the adjournment of the debate.
I take the point the Deputy is making but that was the advice to the Chair.
I was in the Chair for an hour before the adjournment of the debate.
So was I. Did Deputy Moynihan-Cronin have anything to do with the fact that Deputy Wall——
No, I do not make that out. Will the Chair rule on Deputy Haughey's question as to whether I had something to do with Deputy Wall coming in?
No, my understanding is that the list came from the Whips' office.
How can a Labour speaker follow a Fine Gael speaker?
I was not in the Chair
at the time. Obviously, if Deputy Wall was not in the House, he did not move the adjournment and the Chair at the time, Deputy Moynihan-Cronin, obviously did not call him.
The time was up and I had no time to call Deputy Wall.
The list came from the Whips' office.
If I was right there was half a minute of Fine Gael time left.
It should have reverted to the Government side.
While I welcome the increase in child benefit, the improvement in the carer's allowance and respite care grant and other issues which have been dealt with positively, I must raise some other matters. I do not do so to be critical but because I feel strongly about some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It would be remiss of me in speaking on the Bill not to highlight once again the savage 16 cuts announced by the Government before Christmas.
In November voluntary organisations working with those on social welfare voiced their serious opposition to the Government's savage cutbacks. Groups like OPEN, which represents lone parent groups, Simon Community, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Children's Rights Alliance, Threshold and the INOU have all condemned this move by the Minister. The Government's community welfare officers spoke out against its proposals on restricting rent allowance. The Simon Community said the savage 16 cuts were "a backward step and will lead to great hardship", while IMPACT said: "The Minister is pulling away the social safety net".
We cannot refer to the €59 million which was sliced off the already tight social welfare budget without putting it in context by referring to the 100% funding, worth €14 million, allocated to Punchestown, the €40 million being spent on electronic voting which nobody sought or wants except the Government, and the €22 million plus spent on consultants by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We learnt this week that the Government is prepared to squander more than €300 million of taxpayers' money to fund big industries for their CO2 emissions. There is something wrong with this dire picture.
With so much money being flung here, there and everywhere, it is astonishing that the Government continues to ignore the plight of those in our communities who are struggling to cope with the spiralling cost of living in Ireland today and are further marginalised with each passing day. They were bypassed by Ireland's recent economic boom, which is borne out by the fact that, since 1994, the number of people in relative income poverty has more than doubled. The very people living in relative poverty are those who are targeted by these social welfare cutbacks.
This is only the tip of the iceberg but it bears witness to the callous disregard the Government has for the poorest people in society. There is no social or economic justification for these cutbacks. How can the Government, which stated that: "social inclusion is a priority" in its four year review of the work of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, rationalise the sweeping and devastating savage 16 social welfare cutbacks?
The four year review went on to claim: "Our stated objective is to build an inclusive society where all citizens have the opportunity and the incentive to participate fully in the social and economic life of the country". Where is the evidence for this? Recent reports and statistics paint a different picture.
At the beginning of this month, a report compiled by UCD and the Combat Poverty Agency estimated that 2,000 deaths could be attributed to fuel poverty. It is truly shocking that in 2004 people die because they cannot afford to heat their homes. Despite rising costs, the fuel allowance was not increased in the budget. Who in this House would be able to heat his or her home for a pitiful and measly €9 per week? Instead of raising the fuel allowance, the Government has distributed a cold alert card so older people will know when their house is too cold. Knowing one's house is too cold is one thing, being able to afford to heat it is another.
The "savage 16" social welfare cutbacks also featured many attacks on lone parents. They hark back to the Tánaiste's proposal in 1997 to introduce measures to encourage single mothers to remain with their families rather than establish one-parent homes. The cutback allows health boards to refuse rent allowance to those who are not renting for six months prior to the claim and payment will be refused to people who refuse an offer of local authority housing. Another worrying aspect of this situation concerns community welfare officers in regard to rent allowance. The word is out that they have discretion in some cases but, unfortunately, discretion is no good without funding.
Lone parents are also being refused a transitional half-rate social welfare payment to ease them back into employment. Up to now, this payment has ensured a smooth return to work for lone parents who already face a mountain of obstacles in this situation and has provided a safety net for them to cope with the loss of benefits. Not only has the Government reduced lone parents and social welfare entitlements, it has also extended the length of time someone needs to be claiming social welfare to qualify for the back to education allowance from six to 15 months.
As has already been stated by my colleagues, this places more barriers in the paths of people from disadvantaged areas in terms of pursuing further education. Curtailing this allowance means that groups such as lone parents are being excluded from re-entering the labour market and from educational opportunities. Deputy Wall outlined situations such as this before I spoke.
Perhaps one of the most ominous cutbacks of the "savage 16" is the phasing out of the dietary allowance which is paid to those with special dietary needs, such as coeliacs. The special dietary requirements are often much more expensive than other foodstuffs and are a necessity for people who suffer. If one does not have the wherewithal to purchase these foods, what does one do? This could mean a life and death situation for such people, particularly those living on their own. I know the Minister is a decent person and I ask her to examine that cut.
I appeal to the Minister to revisit a particularly mean provision, namely, the changes made to the entitlements to the half-rate payment of disability and unemployment benefit where the recipient is already in receipt of widow's pension or lone parents allowance. This is particularly hard-hitting for those widows who are at a vulnerable time in their lives, especially those whose partners did not have an occupational pension and whose reduction in income is often sudden, particularly in the case of a young person. I appeal to the Minister to reverse this mean cut.
I support the proposals made by my colleague, Deputy Penrose, in regard to the abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance. There are many other issues I would like to address such as the family income supplement and so on but, unfortunately, I do not have the time to deal with them all. Again, I appeal to the Minister to revisit the provisions in regard to the widow's allowance because these people are vulnerable, particularly those with children.
I wish to share time with Deputy Carty.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome this Bill, the second Social Welfare Bill in respect of 2004. Social welfare expenditure in 2004 will exceed €11.26 billion and these two Bills combined will allow for the implementation of a wide range of improvements in social welfare schemes. I welcome the proposed increases in child benefit. There will be an increase of €6 for the first and second child and €8 for the third and subsequent child.
I particularly welcome the Government's approach to child benefit. In recent years, substantial increases in child benefit have been introduced to help parents with child care expenses and to tackle child poverty in a direct way. This, combined with the launch of the equal opportunities child care programme by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has made a real impact in the provision of affordable child care. Under this programme, substantial grants continue to be made to child care groups despite the more difficult budgetary situation. This should be recognised by everyone in this House.
I also wish to draw attention to the increase of €100 in the annual respite care grant. In the case of a carer looking after more than one person, the proposed increase is €200. The plight of carers rightly receives much attention in this House. In particular, the Carers Association, which has been representing Ireland's family carers since 1987, has been effective in briefing Deputies and Senators on the issues and concerns of carers.
Six main requests were made by the Carers Association in the context of the 2004 budget. These were: parity of pay with that of foster carers who receive a higher payment for work of similar value and contribution to society; all family carers, whose income is equal to the average industrial wage, should be eligible for the full carer's allowance; carers in receipt of another social welfare payment should be eligible for carer's allowance; a payment of full carer's allowance in respect of each person being cared for; the carer's allowance to be the subject to the same means-testing system as other allowances, for example, third level maintenance grants; and the development of a national strategy for family carers.
I fully understand the frustrations of carers who believe progress has been slow in implementing this programme of improvements. The complete abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance is not practicable at this time. However, I urge the Minister to increase the income disregards each year for qualification and implement the demands of the Carers Association in the shortest possible timeframe.
Will the Minister confirm recent reports that all babies born on 29 February 2004 will receive €100?
Yes, they will.
I congratulate the Minister on this initiative. For parents, it is a small amount of money but this recognition by the State will be greatly appreciated by them. I wonder if there will be an increase in elective births by induction on that date. In any event, it is good to see the Department of Social and Family Affairs being imaginative on the odd occasion.
That is unusual.
Will the Minister give the House an up-to-date report on plans to extend the free travel scheme — another imaginative scheme? Luas will soon be up and running and the Minister for Transport has plans to privatise a number of bus routes. Will free travel apply in these cases and how will it operate?
In recent days, a debate has arisen regarding the position of immigrants from accession states after EU enlargement on 1 May. Ireland is not imposing any restrictions, at this time, on the number of people from the ten new member states who wish to come here to work, which is fine. However, this situation must be kept under constant review. In my experience, every citizen from central and eastern Europe with a work permit, has ten family members who would wish to come to Ireland to work if they had the opportunity. I hope the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is not underestimating this.
In that context, the Minister announced yesterday that she will bring forward new social welfare code restrictions shortly, having regard to recent decisions in the UK. I welcome this because we must be sensible, practical and pragmatic about these issues.
On several occasions recently, the Minister highlighted the challenges facing us as a result of major changes taking place in society. Such changes include the increasing numbers of older people, single parent families, the number of children of divorced parents, increased migration of non-nationals and the need to tackle poverty and social inclusion. These issues will require much debate in this House and elsewhere. Family policy will have to be examined. In this regard, I welcome the "families first" approach of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. While accepting these realities, we must continue to recognise the importance of marriage in society. Marriage is a good institution. Whatever about introducing measures to positively discriminate in favour of marriage, we should at the very least not allow Government policy to undermine it.
A major part of the Bill deals with equal treatment in regard to occupational pensions. The Bill states that occupational pension schemes will continue to be allowed to pay survivor's benefits to the legal spouse only. However, the practice of allowing schemes to pay to the legal spouse will be considered in the review of public sector schemes announced in budget 2004 in the context of the report of the commission on public service pensions. This could be a controversial issue which could cause difficulties. Any proposed changes and their implications should be fully debated in this House.
On occupational pensions and equal treatment, the Minister stated that occupational pension schemes will continue to be allowed to set ages for admission to the scheme or for entitlement to benefits, for example, normal retirement age. It will also be allowed to use age in actuarial calculations and to set aged based contribution rates in defined contribution schemes. The same applies to accelerated accrual based on age in defined benefit schemes and to pay enhanced benefits to persons retiring early on grounds of disability. These are sensible proposals from the Minister, which I welcome. Obviously the situation will be kept under review.
In the context of the Estimates for 2004, many speakers drew attention to changes in rent supplement and crèche supplement. This has caused concern in my constituency. I have received a lot of correspondence on these issues from interested groups. I accept the reality facing the Minister in regard to these matters. A situation developed in regard to these schemes which was unforeseen, but the people affected by these changes should not be abandoned. Other Departments such as the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the local authorities have a major role to play in solving the problems. I hope the Minister will bring about the much needed interdepartmental co-operation with a view to solving housing and child care issues.
I noted earlier in the debate that Deputy O'Connor drew attention to new facilities by the Department of Social and Family Affairs in Tallaght. Not to be outdone, I would like to draw attention to new facilities put in place by the Department of Family and Social Affairs in Coolock in my constituency. The Northside Civic Centre on Bunratty Road, Coolock, is now open and the Department has decentralised offices to that civic centre. These are ultra modern facilities where the services are first class. The Department is continuing to improve services and facilities in a customer-friendly manner. The facility in Coolock is most welcome.
The Minister might back-date the payment of €100, which will suit Deputy Haughey.
I welcome the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004, which represents a framework of positive structural changes such as increases in benefits to various groups of social welfare recipients, a review of the social welfare code and a number of new measures relating to the Pensions Act. Part 2 of the Bill is concerned with a range of benefits such as increases in child benefit, unemployment assistance, respite care grant, death benefit and maternity benefit. Other provisions apply such as after-death payment arrangements and various proposals relating to employers.
New measures in child benefit and unemployment assistance will take effect from April 2004. In the area of child benefit, there will be a €6 increase for the first and second child to €131.60 each and an €8 monthly increase for the third child and subsequent children, amounting to €165.30 each per month. Unemployment assistance in the context of a means assessment relating to parental income has increased from €31.80 to €40. Changes to the respite care grant and the death benefit-pension will take effect from May. The former allows for a €100 increase to €835 and from €1,470 to €1,670 for those who care for more than one person. From June 2004, the six-week death payment arrangements will be an all-inclusive measure covering all social welfare recipients.
I am pleased at the regulation whereby a woman is entitled to 14 weeks maternity leave and the requirement to take four weeks prior to the confinement has been reduced to two weeks. There is a provision to change maternity benefit arrangements by allowing postponement of maternity benefit in the case of the hospitalisation of an infant for a period after birth. Advancements made in the area of maternity benefit are reflected in the context of adoptive benefit where there will be an increase of two weeks in the adoptive benefit payment period. The former provision will take effect with the enactment of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Bill 2003 by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The latter measure will coincide with the implementation of legislation proposed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Another aspect of the legislation relates to the determining factor regarding claims of entitlement to short-term unemployment and disability benefits. The determining factor of this new proposal is that claims made from January 2005 will be based on the contributory year 2003.
Section 11 authorises additional agencies such as the Companies Registration Office, Enterprise Ireland, the Private Residential Tenancies Board and Coillte Teoranta to use the personal public service number as a public service identifier. The legislation lays down dual measures in respect of employers whereby there is a provision for social welfare inspectors to ensure employers meet their obligations in respect of employees' pension funds. The Bill permits the charging of PRSI, health contributions and training levy where the Revenue Commissioners reach a settlement with an employer in respect of benefit-in-kind payments or services to employees.
Part 3 addresses the issue of discrimination in the context of occupational benefit schemes. In the legislation, occupational pension schemes are defined in two contexts. First, they are defined in regard to self-employed persons in any type of self-employment within the State, excluding an individual contract made by or on behalf of a self-employed person, a scheme for a self-employed person which has just one member or a scheme where benefits are financed by contributions paid by the members on a voluntary basis. The schemes are also defined in regard to employed persons in any type of employment within the State, excluding an insurance contract made by or on behalf of an employed person to which the employer is not a party and a scheme where benefits are financed by contributions paid by the members on a voluntary basis.
Section 19 will be substituted for Part VII of the Pensions Act 1990 which already provides equal treatment for men and women in occupational benefit schemes. This stance on equality will be extended through the implementation of relevant Council Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC which will level the playing field in the areas of discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orientation, religion, race and disability. This prohibition of discrimination also extends to marital or family status in accordance with a Sustaining Progress commitment.
There are some exceptions to this rule in a number of contexts which will not constitute discrimination in the area of occupational benefits schemes. One exception is the age context in that age is a criterion for admission to the scheme or entitlement to benefits and there are age-related contribution rates to defined contribution schemes or age-related rates in defined benefit schemes. In the context of marital or family status, there may be positive discriminatory factors allowed in regard to a member who has dependants, that is, survivor's benefit, and it may only be accrued to a member's widow or widowers. In the context of disability, this legislation allows for early retirement on health grounds.
It is generally believed that the Irish occupational benefits schemes are compliant with new legislation. However, in the event where a rule of a scheme is rendered unlawful in its stance on equality, it will therefore be nullified and the more favourable treatment backdated from the date the rule is amended, which is 1990 in respect of employees on the gender ground; 1976 in the case of access to a scheme; 1993 being the date of the pension directive in respect of the self-employed on the gender ground; July 2003 being the date of the race directive in respect of the race ground; and December 2003 being the date of the employment directive for all other grounds. In regard to cases of discrimination arising in the area of occupational benefit schemes, the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations will act in a similar fashion, as it does for cases of discrimination in the employment sector.
Section 20 provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Pensions Act 1990. Some of these amendments are consequential on the revisions to Part VII and others are technical in nature designed to remove anomalies and correct a drafting error from the 2003 Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
This Bill contains new provisions that will benefit the aforementioned social welfare groups and also provides new regulations in regard to employers, and a progressive approach to occupational benefit schemes in the areas of discrimination and equality. I compliment the Minister on the Bill and I welcome it.
I wish to share my time with Deputies McHugh and Sargent.
That is agreed.
I wish to comment on the proposals mooted by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to restrict social welfare entitlements to migrant workers from accession states in a copycat act of the current British proposals. I thought that by now we would have learned to stop copying Britain in these foolish areas. These proposals are based on the misguided notion of what are referred to as welfare tourists and the right-wing, ideologically driven notion——
The Deputy should not go too far from his party's perspective on this matter.
——that people enjoy living on welfare. That view shows a blatant ignorance of the hardships faced by those living in poverty, unemployment and on low pay. Had even one member of the Government the slightest notion of what it is like to live in poverty in this State, the Government would soon cease believing in the concept of the so-called welfare tourists.
The imposition of restrictions by current member states against workers from the accession states is in contradiction to the European law which asserts that a worker from one member state cannot be treated differently from a worker from another member state because of his or her nationality.
We are not going to change that.
That was not changed; that is still the European law. At the very least such restrictions are contrary to the spirit of European Union membership, which is based on equality among member states. These restrictions create a second lower strata of membership where the citizens of some states have lesser rights than others, and it will further encourage the creation of a two-tier Europe. Does the Minister agree that the restrictions on workers from accession states by current member states is contrary to the Lisbon agenda goal of enhancing free movement for workers? Given that social cohesion, the eradication of poverty and modernising social protection systems are key to the Lisbon agenda, are the recent measures introduced by the British Government in regard to social welfare restrictions on workers from accession states contrary to that goal? I submit that they are.
Accession states have rightly expressed their annoyance about these restrictions, especially the recent U-turns by Britain, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. It should not be forgotten that the accession states received assurances from many EU members during the accession negotiations in 2001 that restrictions on movement of workers from accession states would not be introduced. We are used to that here from treaties with Britain, but it is shameful for other European states to join in supporting the restrictions to which I referred.
I wish to make a few comments on the changes proposed to the respite care grant in section 4. This grant is very useful to the carers of Ireland in providing resources to provide alternative family or institutional care for a person with a disability in order that carers can take a break or enjoy a holiday. Every Member in this House knows the debt society owes to carers. They provide a 24 hour service and their lives are transformed by placing the needs of the person requiring care before their own.
There are severe emotional and physical demands placed on them as a result of providing long-term, high level care. It is estimated by the Carers Association that more than 120,000 carers save the State at least €2 billion per annum. Part of the problem in the way successive Governments have treated carers over the years is the failure to recognise their importance. Many Members on the Government side know from personal experience the value of the work carers do and the strain they are under, but how many, including Ministers, have contemplated the consequences for this State were carers to cease propping up our ailing and underfunded health system? We pay tribute to the work they do but do not recognise the massive importance of it to the State. Imagine the difference to our economy if the Minister for Social and Family Affairs no longer had to pay out carer's allowance or benefit, but the Minister for Health and Children suddenly had tens of thousands more men, women and children seeking full-time medical care.
While the increases outlined in the legislation are welcome given the importance of the respite care grant, most carers will not benefit from it any more than they benefited from the increases in the carer's allowance and benefit announced in the budget. The Minister said that approximately 24,300 carers will benefit from the increase, but what about the other 100,000 carers who are not entitled to carer's allowance or a respite grant? An extra €100 in the grant, to which the majority of carers are ineligible, is not a serious attempt to provide support to carers. It will make no difference to the lives of the vast number of carers and will only serve to remind them again of what they are missing.
I wish to express my outrage at what the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has done with rent supplement. It is disgraceful that she chose to attack rent allowance for the second consecutive year. Nothing has been done about the housing crisis since the parties in Government came to power six years ago. These measures are beginning to bring about an increase in homelessness because vulnerable people find that they cannot get into private rented accommodation.
I am pleased to speak on the Bill. I wish to address an issue not catered for in the Bill but which, I understand from what the Minister said, will be the subject of an amendment to the Bill, namely, the social welfare entitlements of immigrants from new member states after May of this year.
Although my colleague has left the Chamber, I regret I must disagree with mo chara, Deputy Morgan, on this matter. I want to set out clearly that my views are not based on any misguided misconception that all persons who wish to come to this country after May will attempt to defraud the system or will come here because of our generous welfare system. My views are based on the premise that we cannot afford the luxury of waiting to find out — and every responsible government has a duty to legislate in a manner which protects its welfare system from possible abuse. On that principle I support the Government's stated intention of introducing provisions to restrict social welfare entitlements to immigrants from other member states, and in the interest of fairness this restriction would have to apply to all member states outside Ireland rather than just the accession countries.
I do not support a blanket prohibition on Irish people returning to this country qualifying for social welfare entitlements. Exemptions would need to apply to Irish returning immigrants, many of whom may have left the country in times of depression when we as a nation had nothing to offer them. In the twilight of their years they may want to return home, and for various reasons may be unable to find suitable work. In such a situation their motherland should not give them the cold shoulder, and again desert them in their hour of need. That kind of treatment of a returning Irish immigrant is not acceptable in our modern society. Equally, people returning to look after elderly relatives should not be penalised, because by their devotion to their loved ones. By their caring attitude they will save the Exchequer money by performing a function the State will have to perform in the event of them not returning.
The Minister should not take the easy option of wringing her hands or saying her hands are tied because of perceived guilt with regard to discrimination on grounds of nationality. For far too long we have treated poorly our own people who have had to emigrate, and some who have returned. Let us not continue that treatment by lumping them in with, and treating them the same as people who have not ever set foot in this country before.
I do not agree that any prohibition on entitlement to social welfare for immigrants from other EU countries is irresponsible, or shows unfriendliness towards them. It would be irresponsible not to take pre-emptive action and put provisions in place. Those provisions are required not alone to protect the recipients of social welfare but to protect the taxpayer who funds it.
Ireland has shown its generosity and its welcoming nature towards the accession countries by being the only country of the current member states which guarantees the right to work for anyone from the new member states from 1 May this year. While I have outlined my support in principle for such proposals as flagged by the Minister, the details need to be made available before a definitive judgment can be given.
The meagre increase in the respite care grant, bringing it up to €835, has already been mentioned. My colleague Deputy Boyle noted that the Government's 2003 and 2004 social welfare increases are much less than was promised before the general election. I have previously raised the issue of the back to education allowance which affects so many of my constituents and so many people around the country who are trying to improve their lives and join the ranks of higher tax payers. The Government is trying to stop them from doing that.
I will focus on the major issue raised by the Minister on radio this morning about what she might and might not say. Regarding what I have heard in the House not just in the past five minutes but throughout the day, I want to ask one question: who are these people coming to Ireland? One Deputy called them immigrants. They have also been called welfare tourists, as if huge hordes of hungry eastern Europeans will come to Ireland, drawn by our very generous system — let us admit that the Minister would not have criticised for the past few hours if the system were that generous — and take all the goodies Ireland has to offer.
We became rich on the back of EU benefits. We are honour bound to ensure the accession countries get some of those benefits. At the moment if someone who will be a future EU citizen comes here to work and loses his or her job the next day, we do not know what measures the Minister will put in place. I presume the person who comes here, works short term and gets the boot will have to immediately travel back to the country of origin to get adequate benefits. A person is either an EU citizen or is not an EU citizen. Either that or we are returning to an Orwellian vision of a place where all animals are equal, but some more equal than others. This is not the sort of Europe I want to see. It is not the sort of Europe the Green Party fought for in both referenda on the Nice treaty. We were criticised. We were lumped together with the National Platform fascists as wanting to keep eastern Europeans out. We were saying we wanted a fairer, more equal Europe where every member state has an equal say.
This is something the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, echoes regularly at intergovernmental conferences and at the Forum on Europe. The Minister said earlier today that Ireland is in favour of EU enlargement. We are champions of enlargement, as we have experienced at first hand the opportunities that accession to a greater Europe represented for Ireland. In the same speech he said he would not allow our social welfare system to become overburdened. There is no evidence that eastern European accession citizens will overburden our social welfare system. If anything, they will come to Ireland and take the jobs that Irish people are now too proud or too lazy to do. This is already happening in a formal and informal way. There will be no massive horde of spongers. If there were, as my colleague Deputy Boyle said on RTE Radio this morning, the mechanisms can be put in place to stop that.
We are in danger of sending out quite the wrong message. The Government spun the anti-Nice treaty campaign as being anti-European, saying that if we voted "no" to a certain type of Europe we were saying "no" to the accession countries. Now it seems we are saying another sort of "no" to those countries. We are telling them they cannot have the same rights. We are closer to Berlin in that the German Government wants to protect its country's rights and have it both ways. I thought we were a country of higher standards, but it seems that in the face of the British capitulation we will now follow suit, just because the likes of The Sun and The Mirror and all the reactionary newspapers print stories of hordes of welfare spongers coming to Ireland. Yet the Government policies are all Bostonian policies in terms of encouraging enterprise, and not having the proper safety net that our society should have.
I agree with Deputy McHugh on the provision of proper measures so that Irish people returning to this country have the right to live out their lives in peace and in some form of prosperity. Proper measures are not being provided. I did not respond to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, who accused me of constituency envy some time ago, when I spoke of the false rumours about refugees and asylum seekers getting cars from the State. All of these rumours were spurious talk, which was being bandied about from door to door, and it is being perpetuated by Government policies. In the less advantaged areas in our society, competition, or the perception that there is competition, is being created between people born in Ireland and those who have come to Ireland for whatever reason.
The legislation has not yet been spelled out in detail so I plead with the Minister to make it as light as possible, or perhaps say she will reconsider it in six or twelve months. I ask her not to follow the line of The Sun newspaper in the UK. I am sure the Irish edition might be different, but The Sun in the UK is urging that east Europeans be kept out, saying they will sponge on the system. That will not happen. There will be fellow European citizens seeking similar employment opportunities to the ones we got around the world, and from which we prospered. We need a level playing field. If we are all good Europeans, then every good European should be able to come to Ireland to work. If such people lose their jobs, they should be able to benefit from a welfare system just like anyone else.
The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill gives us an opportunity to talk about social welfare matters as well as about the increases proposed in this Bill. We all express our sincere thanks for the way social welfare offices treat their customers. In many cases, they are unfairly criticised by people who go in, do not provide the relevant information and who think those working the offices should be mind-readers. That is something people do not understand. In some instances, there may be genuine problems but in many cases, social welfare staff are wrongly blamed for some of the problems that arise and for which the customers are to blame.
Despite what the pundits in the media might say, the Department of Social and Family Affairs has proved that decentralisation works since it is probably the most decentralised Department. One finds the people in the offices in Longford, Sligo or Letterkenny are more than helpful and are able to help us as much from those locations as if they were operating in Dublin and for which they should be complimented. The managers and staff in the local social welfare offices have performed admirably in regard to the services they provide for their customers. They provide them with knowledge and information. I have come across cases, as I am sure my colleagues have, where people have gone into social welfare offices not knowing their entitlements but have come out fully briefed on their entitlements. In many cases, they discovered they had more entitlements than they realised. That shows the positive approach taken by the Department.
This Bill will help people to see that the Department and the Minister have made enormous strides in improving our social welfare services. Our social welfare services, despite some of the criticisms, are probably the best in the world. Over the past four or five years, the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body has carried out research comparing the social welfare services in Ireland and the UK. Benefits accruing to senior citizens and other welfare recipients in Ireland were much greater than what they would hope to get under the UK system.
The majority of recipients of pre-1953 pensions, about which I will speak later, live outside the State in England or elsewhere. They were entitled to, and have been given, this pension because of their early contribution to the welfare of this State. In many cases, they made a tremendous contribution but many were forced to leave this country because of lack of employment opportunities. The opposite is the case now and we are heading into a labour shortage.
I listened to Deputy Gogarty talk about people here who do not want to do certain jobs. I do not believe Irish people do not want to work. They will seek the best possible job they can get in their own country, on which they are to be complimented. That may mean we cannot supply certain sections of the labour market from the national labour force, but we do not have to criticise our own people for not taking those jobs. If it were not for foreign labour, many of our industries would be in serious trouble. I refer in particular to the hotel and catering industry and to some skilled industries, which face a shortage of skilled people and must import labour. We should not criticise the people by saying they are not prepared to take whatever jobs are available. Unemployment is at its lowest level in living memory. That shows that the people are willing to work and do not want to be welfare dependent. As a nation we should be proud that we are now in a position to improve the lot of our people.
The increases proposed in the Bill are significant. While they may be criticised — it is the duty of the Opposition to criticise — they show have far we have moved in the welfare stakes. The increases for senior citizens are welcome. We are entitled to give the maximum support possible to our older citizens because they built this State. They made the contributions in work and made sacrifices to educate their children down through the years. They are now entitled to reap the benefit of the maximum allowances that can be paid. Given the increases in recent years, the Government's commitment that before the end of its lifetime the old age pension will be €200, is well on the way to being fulfilled. I have no doubt the Minister will ensure it is fulfilled before the end of the lifetime of this Government.
When talking about senior citizens, we must also look at the other benefits, such as the free schemes, which are most important. At times we hear criticisms of some of these schemes. As far as I am concerned, these schemes are of enormous social benefit to older citizens. Free travel, for instance, is a major asset to older people. In many cases, they would not be able to travel to see their relatives throughout the country if it were not for the free travel scheme.
The free telephone rental allowance has been of enormous benefit. The people it has most benefited are those living in isolated rural areas. Many old age pensioners would not have installed telephones were it not for the fact they had free telephone rental. In many cases their bills would not be economically viable from the point of view of the service providers. If, for example, they were looked at by Eircom on the basis of economy, they would not have a telephone service.
As a nation, we are more caring than people think. As far as welfare is concerned, we probably have the best welfare system in the world. I heard a comment earlier about the threat of 1 May. I believe it is a real threat and it is a matter about which I will say more tomorrow.
The proposed increases are significant. The changes to some of the schemes, especially the increases in the carer's allowance, are ones we would never have dreamed possible ten years ago. If Members had talked about the carer's allowance at its current level, they would have been laughed out of this House. People forget these are new schemes which have been introduced to support people. The carer's allowance is an important element of keeping people out of public institutions. It definitely brings about a considerable saving for the Exchequer. I have no doubt but that the Minister would like to see the finances available for this scheme increased no end. However, one must remember this is not a bottomless pit; it is real money that must be collected by the Minister for Finance and made available to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. While we all see the merits of expanding the scheme, there are limits to the resources available to the Minister.
The rate of the old age pension is €167 per week but it is only seven years since the pension was €99 per week. That is enormous progress. The Minister has continued to make progress since she took office two years ago to ensure old age pensions are increased.
The changes to the child benefit are important and it is now three times what it was in 1997. People did not realise a threefold increase could be achieved by the Minister. It has been of enormous benefit. I agree with those who said this money is normally spent on children. Some people have called for child benefit to be means tested, but it should not be. It is for the welfare of children, whether to provide facilities for them, and we must support it.
We must also look at a number of other schemes.
Debate adjourned.