Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Feb 2004

Vol. 581 No. 1

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I referred to the decentralisation programme in my previous contribution and, having listened to "Morning Ireland" this morning, I must refer to it again.

The Government would want to count the numbers again.

While Deputy Durkan may have a problem with people moving to his former homeland, I have no problem with people moving to the west of Ireland.

I have no problem with it.

Allow Deputy Ellis to speak without interruption.

It is important that we explain to people that the places seeking and selected for decentralisation are, in many case, those where people will have a quality of life they would not experience living in Dublin. Yesterday morning, it took me 45 minutes to travel three and a half miles in this city. In rural Ireland, one could easily commute 30 miles in 45 minutes in total safety and without the pressures of living in Dublin.

An unfair attack is being made by certain sections of the media on the decentralisation of Departments. Certain towns have been criticised, but the towns which have been selected as favourable venues and to which civil servants want to relocate, are not referred to by the media because they have attractions which are not available to people in Dublin city.

Another bone of contention I and others have, although it is not the Minster's fault, is the number of people who have sought pre-1953 pensions and have not been able to acquire the necessary records. There was apathy about stamped contributions in the period before 1953 and, in many cases, people were not given their full entitlements because stamps were often never purchased, despite employees — as well as their employers — having made contributions. Perhaps an appeals system could be put in place to allow people who have been affected by this to get their records brought up to date. Something must be done to help such people.

Many beneficiaries of the pre-1953 scheme live outside the State. It is only fair that their contribution to the country in their early life should be rewarded with pension top-ups. It is fair that the contribution they made towards this country in their earlier life should be rewarded by way of extra pension top-ups.

I want to return to something which is very important to social welfare recipients, namely, the fact that social welfare benefits are now paid in line with the calendar year. I recall when social welfare increases were not paid to recipients until July or August. They received just three months benefit in some cases, whereas taxpayers received their tax benefits as and from April. The fact that we use the calendar year is of great importance to recipients who are now treated in the same way as taxpayers. The fact that the Bill allows for the payment of money due from 1 January is something we all welcome.

The issue of migrant workers after 1 May has been referred to. We must realise that we are not in the business of providing social welfare tourism. It has been suggested that Ireland could be seen as a soft touch. If the social welfare laws are not amended, people could come here as tourists at the expense of our social welfare system. This is something no one can accept. We all accept that migrant workers who want to move across the EU have rights. However, we must also respect our own citizens' rights. This country's social welfare system is probably the best in the world, but we will not be able to maintain it if we make social welfare payments to people who have not made a contribution. We must be clear on this issue. All of us would have a certain amount of sympathy — I certainly have — with those who wish to work in the country but it will take them a certain amount of time to get established. Perhaps we should consider a short-term benefit to allow people to get employment and set themselves up. I am talking about no more than two to three weeks. This would give people who wish to work here an opportunity to establish themselves. However, we cannot allow people to come in here, sign on for social welfare benefits and decide to make it their source of income, which is exactly what will happen.

I recently watched a television programme where migrant workers are travelling to the UK from Poland. One individual said he would earn more in three days in the UK than his mother earned in Poland in a month. This indicates that in many instances the Irish social welfare system would probably equal the monthly earnings of someone in the new accession states. The Minister is duty bound to introduce legislation to close any loopholes that may exist. We are all aware of loopholes that have been exploited, therefore, I have no doubt that our open border policy in respect of labour would lead to abuse if there were no constraints on the social welfare system.

I emphasise that this country needs migrant workers because many industries could not function without them. These people must also realise that they have responsibilities in the way they behave. Many migrant workers who have come here under work permits have been exceptionally beneficial to our economy, and without them we could not have made the progress we did. The catering industry, in particular, has benefited from migrant workers, even from within the EU. Many skills are still in short supply here despite the best efforts of all the training organisations. If there is a need for migrant workers with high skills to come to this country, it is imperative that they are facilitated by those who wish to employ them.

This Bill is of enormous importance in respect of the progress made in the social welfare system. We have made tremendous strides in social welfare payments over the past 20 years. As I said earlier, our social welfare system is second to none in the world. When we leave the country and meet people who live under different systems, we discover that our system is probably the best. The way in which we look after our senior citizens cannot be challenged. This morning I had to deal with a problem relating to an emigrant who now lives in the UK. This person said were it not for the top-ups he receives from the Irish social welfare system, he would be living in poverty. He said that if he were living in Ireland, he would have a much higher standard of living. It is not practical for him to do so but he said the benefits that accrue to senior citizens, such as free travel, free electricity, free telephone rental and so on, are probably worth in the region of €50 to €60 a week to senior citizens. This is a lot of money together with their regular pension payments.

Abuse is something we have managed to stamp out as far as the social welfare system is concerned. There is still an odd case of abuse but the introduction of computers and other back-up facilities has helped to put an end to fraud in the system. I hope some of the fraud which occurred recently, mainly committed by non-nationals, can be dealt with. We heard of people who managed to get birth certificates in spurious circumstances and drew welfare from the State for a period. I am pleased that loophole has now been closed. It was deplorable that people went to churchyards to find out who died as infants, obtained their birth certificates, and used them to abuse the social welfare system. I am pleased the Department of Social and Family Affairs has taken these people to task.

I welcome the Bill. It provides the necessary power to make the payments referred to. It also deals with some of the Department's problems. When the Bill reaches Committee Stage, I hope the necessary amendments to deal with social welfare tourism will be tabled.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Timmins. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. Whenever we address social welfare issues in this House, we are addressing the concerns of many people. We are addressing the concerns of younger people, people with families and disadvantaged people who may not be able to get work or may be short of money. These people find life more difficult than those of us who are lucky enough to have jobs and good careers. Everything may not go right in our lives but, at least, we have the security of a job.

When talking about social welfare, I would like, as a public representative, to say something about the officials in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I mean this because, as public representatives, we deal with people in various Departments and authorities all the time. The service we get from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, particularly in regard to parliamentary questions, is excellent. It must be acknowledged because people are working in the background and at all times they provide a good service.

There are many varied issues in regard to the Bill. Top of the list of issues is the cutback in the back to education allowance. It will affect 12,000 people at a gross estimated cost to the Exchequer of €2.2 million. In anyone's terms, that amount represents a small saving. The back to education allowance, which has greatly benefited many people, is all but abolished.

We should encourage people to return to education. It is wrong of the Government to change the system such that it does not encourage people to return to education. To put it bluntly, education is the most important thing in people's lives. Many people drop out of education due to different circumstances. Changes in society have led to an increase in the number of unmarried mothers and many women get pregnant at an earlier age. A certain number of women in that category have dropped out of education. I meet many people in my clinics who are anxious to return to education. When they return to education they later prove to be good employees and go on to have great careers. I condemn the cutback in this allowance and I am amazed the Minister made such a drastic cut in it.

Child benefit is a major allowance for parents. Child care costs are high and parents experience considerable financial pressure in rearing their children because of ongoing and rising costs. They like to give their children the best they possibly can. Discontinuing the crèche supplement for child care is a retrograde step. The Government should reconsider this decision. The cost involved is €2.3 million. Members should oppose this change, as it is a bad way to go about doing our business.

All types of child care have become very expensive. Regulations put in place by the health boards have resulted in the closure of some child care or crèche facilities, perhaps in some cases for some good reason. However, the regulations resulting in many such closures are far too harsh on the people involved.

I know of one case in Tipperary town, which has a RAPID programme and is known to be a disadvantaged town, where the local health board put pressure on the operators of a facility catering for approximately 60 children. The two girls who started that business had to change its opening hours. They almost closed the facility, save for the intervention of a number of intermediaries who convinced them otherwise. They are so frustrated with the provisions of the regulations that I believe they will not continue to provide the facility. As a result of the provisions of the regulations, their costs will increase, which will result in higher costs for those parents who send their children to the facility. I condemn the regulations that are having such an impact.

I listened with deep interest to the case made by the Carers Association. Carers are a valuable asset to our society and we should do more to help them and the Carers Association which represents them. They have saved taxpayers and the health care system many millions of euros over many years, but they have been totally undervalued. One would be amazed at the amount of valuable work carers do in caring for older people, their neighbours or family members. Any family members who have looked after elderly people — I have witnessed this in my family — have got great satisfaction from doing so. We should be ashamed of the way we have failed to properly resource carers. If we achieve no other change in the Bill, we should aim to address the case of carers. We celebrate the Year of Elderly, various initiatives people have undertaken and clap ourselves on the back, but we should be ashamed of what we are doing in regard to the carers. We should seriously examine their case in coming years. The financial saving accruing to the State from their work has never been properly calculated.

The Government has been extremely harsh in changing the rent supplement which helped people to set up their own homes with their families. The people who qualify for rent supplement could not afford to build or buy their own houses. There are very long local authority housing waiting lists around the country. The numbers on those lists are increasing despite the number of houses being built. It is unfair of the Government to make this change which affects many people. When a regulation or rule such as that governing the rent supplement is changed, the case can always be made that some people are abusing the system. However, I forcefully condemn this harsh move by the Minister. It is unfair to younger people who cannot get a start in life. It makes their situation almost impossible. This affects people who are unemployed or those who are fortunate enough to have a job and want to set up home. The Government has been unfair to those people.

There are many other issues I would like to address. One that springs to mind is the case of widows over the age of 50 who have not reached retirement age, particularly those in receipt of the non-contributory old age pension. They are not looked after. They feel vulnerable and left out. We need to consider their case. They are at a vulnerable stage in their lives. We should examine the case being made by that category of widows in the next budget.

The other issue I wish to raise is decentralisation, which also applies to staff in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I greatly approve of and support the move towards decentralisation, but when will it happen? We read newspaper reports that some civil servants do not want to move. Listening to civil servants, I am concerned that the issue is being politicised. It is time to stop the banter about decentralisation and put dates and times on the move. The indecision is upsetting to the civil servants, and more so to towns waiting with bated breath for the move to take place. I challenge the Government to announce a date for the various moves.

I also urge the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to take account of people who are hard up, and not to introduce harsh measures which make life more difficult for the vulnerable in our society.

Previous speakers spoke about decentralisation. I will make a forecast which is not particularly brave: decentralisation as currently mapped out will never happen. It cannot and will not happen. The Minister for Finance must return to the drawing board and discuss the matter with the Departments. As it stands, workers can voluntarily go to the various locations. The Minister must determine where people want to go, and then draw up his plan. Most people favour decentralisation, but if the matter drags on in its current form, it will undermine morale and ultimately the integrity of the Civil Service. I urge the Minister to go back to the drawing board, to be realistic, to admit that he got things wrong and to consult. The matter needs consultation. Decentralisation cannot be pulled out of a hat like a rabbit. It will not work in that way.

I acknowledge the excellent work of the staff in the Department of Social and Family Affairs relative to some other Departments, for example, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to which the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, is attached. One could table 1,000 questions to that latter Department and find that the difficult questions are referred to the health board, from which one gets in return an anonymous letter containing no information. The staff in the Department of Social and Family Affairs are excellent in this regard, and very co-operative.

I wish to make a few general points regarding this Bill. Many people on welfare are vulnerable. There are many fine schemes available, such as the family income supplement scheme, but many people qualified to avail of such schemes do not do so because they are not aware that they qualify. I do not know how the Department might take a more pro-active approach. I am aware that it advertises and so on, but many people who should benefit from these schemes do not have the knowledge or confidence to fill out the forms and make the application. It is the same with all State services, whether they involve housing or health difficulties. Some people do not have the confidence or the wherewithal to apply. I ask the Department to consider this matter again. Local county councillors and social workers play a major role in this area in bringing people up to speed with information and obtaining for them their due entitlements.

I want to refer to the back to education allowance, and the crèche supplement for children, which I believe is to be discontinued. As our economy and society evolve, various jobs which we never thought would be lost, will be lost. Jobs in services as well as in manufacturing will go because people will take their services to where the labour pool is cheapest. We must address this problem with consistent training and re-education in the private and public sector. In teaching, for example, we talk about inservice days and so on, but the amount of re-training done by teachers is minuscule, totally irrelevant and unsatisfactory. Any facility that can be put in place in the social welfare system to assist education, training and child care should be beefed up rather than cut down. It is important to ensure we have a competitive advantage. We can only have that by re-training and re-skilling people.

There are some other contentious issues, and as the barristers say, "I will now diverge from my colleague's views." When one talks of welfare and addressing its abuses, I am always conscious that the populist retort is that one is against vulnerable people. I acknowledge that one can never have enough money in the welfare system to deal with all the hardship. Nevertheless, in the measure taken by the Minister, the rent supplement allowance is being used as a blunt instrument. I ask her to consider how it might be made more user friendly. In many towns, the rent allowance has unnecessarily driven rents through the roof. As a result of the rent supplement being available, much higher rents are being paid for properties than should be paid. Many such properties are in very poor condition. Moreover, a certain number of landlords register with the local authority. I do not know where the legislation in that regard currently stands. Is there a court challenge against it? Are people obliged to register? I do not know what the people who register get for their registration. I understand there was supposed to be an inspection mechanism, but many people on rent supplement are paying a lot of money for accommodation one would not put a dog in. Something must be done about that.

I will tread carefully in the following area. I am putting the following remarks out as a theory, and I am always conscious that the Government propaganda press office can misinterpret and regurgitate what one says, placing it out of context. It is important to realise that welfare money comes from the pocket of the taxpayer. Every euro spent on a benevolent system is money lost to the system — to the good projects within it. I do not like the concept of benevolent projects. I noticed that in some states in the United States, where welfare benefits lasted for 40 weeks, the average take-up time for a job was 39 weeks; when the benefit period was reduced to 20 weeks, the average job take-up time fell to 19 weeks. If an able-bodied person, man or woman, is on welfare benefit, then after a certain period of time that person must make some contribution to society. After an appropriate period of time, perhaps 12 or 18 months, a person on long-term unemployment benefit should make a contribution to the economy. That is unless he or she is moved on to a disability or invalidity benefit — many people lose their jobs and cannot get other employment because of medical reasons. Such people might become classroom assistants or assist in some of the many public works needed. That is very important. If Intel went bust in the morning — God forbid — and people had to go on welfare, then those with a certain expertise should, after some time, unless they move to a disability or sick benefit, move into a Government Department where their skills could be used. I repeat that every euro spent on a benevolent exercise is a loss to the economy.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in this area. I recall listening one night to Fr. Seán Healy as I was driving. I hope I am not misquoting him, but he stated that €1 billion in the budget would solve all the problems of welfare. However, when Fine Gael opposed benchmarking, one of the first responses came from Fr. Healy, who said it should be paid. One cannot have it every way. There is only so much money in the pot. I do not mean to criticise Fr. Healy in a personal capacity, but while CORI finds it simple to say welfare problems could be solved with €1 billion, the question is from what areas that money will be taken.

With the permission of the House, I would like to share my time with Deputy Andrews.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004. I wish to raise a number of issues. I draw the attention of the House and the Minister, in particular, to a number of anomalies in the system which have been raised with me and, I suppose, in every constituency clinic in recent years. Every public representative gets a greater understanding of the social welfare system than any other. That is certainly my experience. When PRSI was introduced in 1988 for self-employed people, a number of people did not pay it, either deliberately or otherwise, even though they had been making tax returns for a number of years. I came across one instance where a self-employed person had been making tax returns since the late 1960s but when compulsory PRSI for self-employed people was introduced in 1988, he did not pay it for two or three years, whether through the fault of the Revenue, his accountant or himself. When he went to claim a contributory pension, he was disallowed because he had not made a contribution prior to his 56th birthday.

Many cases can be made in that regard and perhaps the Minister and the Department will consider it, particularly since the person made tax returns and paid all other forms of tax. He has the necessary contributions because at 57 years of age or whatever, he started to pay them. He would have at least qualified for a pro rata pension had it not been for the legislation requiring him to have made a PRSI contribution prior to his 56th birthday. The pro rata pension was introduced in 1997-98. Self-employed people who began to pay PRSI contributions from 1988 onwards and who may only have paid them for five or six years are now getting a pro rata pension. Many people, however, paid contributions for nine or ten years. The Department and the Government should at least consider giving those who paid contributions for nine or ten years the pro rata pension.

The Bill gives effect to various increases announced in the budget, including child benefit and the respite grant for carers. The increase of €100 in the respite grant from €735 to €835 and from €1,470 to €1,670 for those caring for more than one person will come into effect in May. The carer's benefit and allowance, which have been in place for some time, give some recognition from the State to the considerable contribution carers make. For a number of years carers did not receive payment, and I welcome this initiative. Members on all sides have said that carer's allowance and benefit should be increased considerably. There is no doubt about that but there is only so much money in the kitty. I welcome the increase in the respite grant.

From time to time we come across young widows and young people who have lost a spouse or a partner and who are left to care for children. I know of one woman who is in her late 20s, who has three young children and who lost her husband in the past 12 months. She is getting the single parent's allowance. With three young children under the age of five, there is no way she can return to the workforce and have a reasonable standard of income. She is caught in a poverty trap, let us be absolutely fair about it. She is committed to her three children and must look after them because they are so young. She cannot get into the workforce to increase her income. The income she is getting from the Department of Social and Family Affairs is not enough. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that she is considering the possibility of doing something for these people, and it is not before time, as has been said by many public representatives. I urge the Minister to look at this issue.

Over the years Social Welfare Bills and debates in the Houses on social welfare have changed dramatically. In the past, the focus was on unemployment benefit and assistance. Given the level of employment, the Social Welfare Bill now deals with people on carer's allowance, single parents and so on. It has changed direction.

Deputy Timmins spoke about Fr. Seán Healy. When disadvantaged areas are discussed in the newspapers and so on, the focus tends to be on inner city or large urban areas. However, there is much disadvantage in rural Ireland as well. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has targeted funding at disadvantaged people and those who are socially cut-off or neglected. Sometimes the grants made available are small, but some of them are very helpful. Great efforts have been made to target people in disadvantaged areas, whether urban or rural, through community groups and organisations, the Leader programme and so on. There is a considerable onus on the Government and on us, as legislators, to provide whatever help possible to those who are disadvantaged because those who are well off will look after themselves. Those who are isolated, both socially and economically, become more isolated as the years pass.

I welcome the increases in child benefit, which have helped people. At a community meeting I attended in recent weeks there was a discussion on child benefit and one parent said she was getting the same amount for her last child as she did when she had four children. The money being provided for child benefit is welcome and long may the increases made since 1997 continue.

Earlier this week the UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett, announced that people from EU accession countries would not need work permits to work in that country but would simply have to register. This has forced a rethink in Ireland and, accordingly, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs made an announcement this week.

The question of the extension of the social welfare system is mired in much misunderstanding. There is a view that a large number of people from accession countries are spongers and social welfare tourists and are waiting at the border to pour into this country and other EU member states to take advantage of social welfare. This is insulting to the accession countries. The idea that the proud races of eastern Europe would come over here simply to benefit from our social welfare system defies logic. People from the accession countries will come here to work and in that way they will add to the national fund. Those who are unable to work can be paid accordingly out of the national fund. There will be a far greater number of people contributing through their labour than those requiring social welfare assistance. The two-year moratorium can be extended later by the Government. However, I would be concerned about what could happen to a worker from a new member state who, 18 months after accession, is unable to continue working due to an occupational injury or other health reasons. What will happen to that person at that stage, before the two-year moratorium is up? Will that person be required by the Government and by EU decisions to leave the country? If he or she refuses to leave or cannot do so, will he or she be deported? It is hard to believe we could stand over a decision that would allow for deportations of EU nationals to other EU member states but that is the reality of the situation. If there is to be any seriousness about the refusal of social welfare to citizens of the accession countries, then there must be a penalty requiring deportation. It is bad enough deporting people to non-EU countries, but it is worse to suggest that it could happen to citizens of the accession states. I do not blame the Government for this state of affairs; I blame the European Union and the First World mentality. We want to take over the markets of eastern Europe but we do not want any of its problems. We want access to their markets as well as those of the Third World but we will not allow significant immigration into the EU. Effectively we are trying to have our cake and eat it. We are trying to have the best of both worlds — access to east European markets but none of the social problems that arises as a result of extending the EU's borders.

The proposal is probably illegal and a barrier to the free movement of workers. The argument is made that in reality the EU only guarantees freedom of movement to people seeking jobs, rather than those seeking social welfare. However, as I have described, there are situations in which people will work for a year or so but may be unable to continue working. They may then seek social welfare, to which they should be entitled, but that will not be allowed under the present rules. Any challenge to those rules under the EU treaties could be successful. The proposal is an indirect barrier to the freedom of movement of workers within the EU and it will be understood in that manner if such a challenge occurs.

There are two basic arguments against the movement of workers from accession countries. One is the possibility of overburdening the Exchequer, which I believe does not stand up, given the number of people who will come here to contribute their labour. The other argument is the danger of social welfare fraud that many people are using as a stick with which to beat the Government's policy. Millions of euro are already being spent annually on social welfare fraud investigations. My own limited research reveals that a mere €300,000 has been saved as a result of these investigations. We do not know how much compliance is as a result of the high degree of investigation, but that probably should be added on to the savings figure, even though it would be a speculative one. We have a very strong social welfare fraud investigation system which targets employers, employees and the unemployed. The investigation system is well equipped to deal with any challenges arising from fraud that might occur concerning any immigrants, be they from the accession states or elsewhere.

Asylum applications, although a separate issue, have fallen significantly, which gives us an opportunity to consider the matter of immigration. We should be serious and mature in our approach to immigration. One way of adopting such a mature approach would be to grant an amnesty on 1 May 2004 to all illegal workers from the accession countries who are already here. The United Kingdom has decided to do that and, although our Government has not yet made a decision in that regard, it is the least we can do to acknowledge that the argument about immigration is bogged down in misunderstandings. As the current holders of the EU Presidency, we must be leaders and take a stand. It is rare that we have such a prominent role in the governance of the European Union and it will be a long time before we have such an opportunity again. On 1 May, the question will arise as to whether all the illegal people from the accession countries will be permitted to work here legally. In my view, the Government should grasp that opportunity to demonstrate that we have a mature attitude to immigration, by providing an amnesty to all such people living here on that date.

Deputy Timmins referred to some of the comments made by Fr. Seán Healy who does manage to get into a row every now and then. He is certainly always accusing the Government of being right wing. It is not a view that I would share.

He gets some things right.

I do not think he got that right. Social welfare spending has doubled in the last six years to over €11 billion per annum. This increase is above the consumer price index of 3.5% and comes against a backdrop of a significant fall in the numbers of unemployed. I accept that there are increased demands on social welfare due to other social and cultural changes but we must remember that the Government has doubled social welfare spending against the backdrop of an improved economy. People do not currently require the same level of social welfare support they did hitherto and, therefore, to say that this is a right-wing Government simply flies in the face of logic.

I welcome the provisions of the Bill and I do not think there are any objections that can be made to it. I welcome the changes that have been made to pensions as a result of our obligations under EU law. It is fashionable nowadays to attack political correctness and to disparage quotas and anti-discrimination measures but it is up to us as politicians to lead that debate. Although it is an obligation under EU law, what the Minister is doing under this heading is very welcome.

Child benefit increases will benefit everyone and the direct payment method is the best one. A person with three children will receive €428 per month, which provides a great improvement to people's lifestyles. In addition, the child benefit increases are above the consumer price index rate.

Carers are a group of people in society whose significance is growing. Like many north European countries, we have much greater pressure on the social welfare system, compared to earlier decades when families would have taken responsibility for their elderly and infirm relatives. In the past, there was not the same call on the State to provide such services but there has been a change in demographics and, as a result, the Government has improved the circumstances of carers. I particularly welcome the Bill's provision for an increase of €100 in the respite care grant for carers. I sincerely hope that grant will increase exponentially over the next few years, if the Fianna Fáil-PD Government remains in place.

The removal of anomalies in death benefit payments is a welcome step. I commend the Minister for the forward-looking and progressive measures she has taken regarding adoptive leave, which will improve the situation for many people who were ignored in the past. I commend the Bill to the House.

There is little on which I disagree with the previous speaker. It continues to amaze me that he is not a member of an Opposition party. I mean that as a genuine compliment.

I thank the Deputy.

I have spent the majority of my life promoting women's participation in all aspects of society and I am always happy when a woman is promoted to a position of power, such as a ministerial post, in which she can do something worthwhile. A position at the Cabinet table is the ultimate in power, as one can be a driving force for change if the Government has sufficient numbers.

A group of women from UCC visited me in the House yesterday. They are studying issues such as women in power, their position in society, their position in history and what the future holds for them. This probably interests women more than men but it should interest men as much as it interests women. When women have their way, society is a better place for everyone. I discussed the notion of women in power with the group and we all agreed that when women are promoted, it comes as such a shock to them that their ability is recognised and that men agree they are capable of doing the job that they are too anxious to convince the men who promoted them that they are as capable of doing the job as men.

Women have a great deal to contribute to the social welfare system and to all other aspects of society. It is not the softer option and women have a major contribution to make. However, most people believe that women have an affinity with social welfare because, at the end of the day, it is not only about the long-term unemployed and people who are sick and unable to work. Social welfare should be about the betterment of society, for instance, in the areas of child care and caring for the elderly, and it should also be about ensuring communities operate at a level that benefits everyone.

Women are better represented in sub-Saharan Africa than in Ireland. It was a greater bonus for the women of Ireland when Deputy Coughlan was appointed to a powerful position as Minister for Social and Family Affairs than it would have been in most other countries. Women expect more from each other and we suffer more when a woman in power turns out to do the job as well and in the same fashion as a man. I am sure Deputy Cooper-Flynn, who is present, has also been constantly reminded about what Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir did when they were in power.

We are continually asked why people should vote for women when they do exactly the same as men anyway. I am worried about this. Few women are elected to the House and we do not feel as secure in our positions as men. We, therefore, act in a way that is against our nature. Perhaps I am misreading the Minister's outlook and it may not be against her nature as she may have always wanted to run her Department like this and this is how she always felt. The social welfare budget is not in the best interests of society and local communities, in particular. Women take a different view of the world and when they assume a position of power, they should take the opportunity to ensure the world is a better place for all of us.

Deputy Andrews wondered why carers do not take more responsibility for the elderly but the elderly is not the only group that is dependent. Many people who are chronically ill continue to reside in their homes and many children need continuous care, as a result of which their parents stay at home. However, I am always amazed at how we delude ourselves in terms of our history. My mother used to tell me that the extended family, as it applied in urban Ireland, did not have anything to do with a love of the family or the fact that children could not bear to leave their mothers and fathers, as a result of which several families lived in tenements, but it related to economics because people could not afford to live independently. For example, the debate on Private Members' Business the week before last was about Irish emigrants. Cork people in the past usually emigrated to work at the Ford plant in Dagenham, England, and they did not come back because they did not have the support of their families and communities. If an emigrant returned, he or she had to live with his or her parents, with his or her family in tow. While that was not good for anyone, it was most certainly not good for women.

I hope the Minister will row back on the change to the rent allowance scheme and that the issue will strike a chord with her. Before the 2002 election the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment proposed that young people should not be allowed to leave home as they should be the responsibility of their parents and, therefore, rent allowance would not be easily available. That proposal has seen the light of day in this legislation through the Minister's amendment to the rent allowance scheme, and that is worrying.

It is fine for someone who has a decent job and wishes to live independently of his or her family to take up accommodation in the private rented sector. Rents are scandalously high. I agree with Deputy Timmins that most of the accommodation is of poor quality but that is changing and not all landlords are bad. However, they demand a return on their investment. The new restrictions on the rent allowance scheme has made an entire family homeless in Cork. The family consists of a mother and two teenage boys. No hostel in Cork will take males over ten years old who are accompanied by their mothers. They will not mix genders above the age of ten. The two teenage boys are depending on the decency and compassion of other families. When I inquired last week what was happening and tried to rectify the situation, I learned that the mother had also left the hostel with her daughter.

Why could she not get rent allowance?

She has not been in private rented accommodation for six months.

Has she an assessed need?

She has recently been assessed as having an emergency need of housing and I hope the problem will be solved this week. However, this is three weeks down the line.

Where was she up to three weeks ago?

Emergency assessment is the way around this problem. I am not the only person to have discovered this. I know of a single man whose marriage has broken up and who now finds himself homeless. We know where he was up to four weeks ago. He was in the family home. He is now homeless. He was in a hostel but only on a temporary basis because most hostels are full of almost permanent residents. He is now homeless and will never be assessed as an emergency because Cork City Council does not have accommodation suitable for him.

If he is homeless, he does not even need to go through the assessment procedure.

The Minister of State should tell that to the community welfare officer——

The officer should look at the guidelines.

——who must use her discretion when, according to the Minister, there is no discretion.

There is no need for discretion. The guidelines are clear.

It is fine for us to sit here and talk about these matters. This man is homeless in the freezing cold.

I wish people would look at the guidelines instead of at newspaper headlines.

I assume I can make a contribution without interruption.

I am trying to be helpful.

The Minister of State could be helpful by withdrawing the relevant section from the Bill.

A person who loses his or her spouse receives the basic widow's or widower's pension and a child dependant allowance of €21.80. I do not think I am over generous with my children and €20 is the least one could give a child going to town on a Saturday. This is the amount a widow or widower is given to keep a child for a week. There are no secondary benefits. I know a young widow who has six young children, some of them babies. She has had to take on three separate part-time jobs to be available at different times when her children return from school, to make ends meet and to keep a fire in the grate and food on the table. Nevertheless, Deputy Andrews claims this is not a right-wing Government.

The Government spends €100,000 per day on advisers and consultants. What element of that is spent on polling? We all know that the poor do not vote. I know one area where only 23% of the electorate voted in the previous general election. It is nice for politicians be able to sit back and say that, because the poor do not vote, we need not be concerned. We should be concerned. It is not only the poor who depend on social welfare payments. Those who contribute to the Central Fund may find themselves out of work through sickness or for some other reason and may have to depend on social welfare. Such people will get a great shock when that happens.

The Government is depending on the fact that people do not know about the changes in the small print of the social welfare code where it says that additional contributions and longer time in the workforce are required before a contributor can claim benefit. People do not know this and the Government is hoping against hope that they do not find it out for a long time. The increase in the social welfare budget in recent years has been corrected this year by a decrease of €59 million.

I come back to the question of women in power. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs was mugged at the Cabinet table. I am being kind when I say that. The Government spends €100,000 on advisers and consultants and has spent €1.74 million on new cars. I do not say Ministers should drive ramshackle cars whose engines are about to drop out. Nevertheless, the kind of belt tightening being imposed on a certain sector of the community is not being applied to the Government. A grant of €14 million was given to the Punchestown equestrian centre and €40 million has been spent on electronic voting at a time when the Government tells us the Exchequer is not a bottomless pit, there is no more money and the taxpayer must be appeased. I do not understand how any woman could stand over these cuts. How can a Minister sleep at night knowing that the changes she made in the Social Welfare Bill have made people homeless?

They have not made people homeless.

They have. I can introduce the Minister of State to such people. He has not met them. The changes in the social welfare code have rendered people homeless and they will render more homeless. A person who does not have an address cannot register to vote, so what does it matter? The homeless cannot and do not vote, so why should we look after them?

Lack of child care is the last great barrier to women's participation in society. I say society and not work. The Government has the money, the opportunity and the numbers to introduce universal child care. It should be done. The template is available throughout the country but there has been no movement on this issue. Crèches are closing because mothers are giving up the struggle of rushing between work, home and child care and trying to pay for the service. Most women persist because they believe child care is only needed for a short time until children go to primary school and because they are desperately trying to hold onto their jobs.

A young single parent in her mid-20s who must leave her child in a crèche from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. can be left with only €50 at the end of a week. She must pay for her child minder and a car loan, which she needs because she must take the child to the child minder and then drive to work. She must also keep herself together for work. When such a woman is left with only €50 at the end of the week, she is faced with a choice. Many decide that such a life enriches neither mother nor child and decide to give up their job. Such a young woman is an asset to our community and to the economy.

The Minister has chosen to ignore these difficulties because she feels she is part of the big boys' club and she must act like one of them. Any woman who finds herself in a position of power should remember her commitment to society, as a woman, act on that instinct and never allow it to be taken from us.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, who spoke very passionately and whose sincerity I do not doubt. In the course of her speech, she stated that women expect more of other women. There is no doubt that is probably the case, but sometimes the expectations are unrealistic. It is sad that women would forgive a man for doing something but would have expected much more from a woman. I do not think that is acceptable. It is unfair that women expect other women to re-invent the wheel almost.

An Agreed Programme for Government is a five year programme and it would be unreasonable to expect it to be implemented in a period of 18 months. The programme reflected the views in society as it was voted on by men and women. In fairness to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, it is wrong to say she is not interested in child care or in the work of carers or in contributing to the community as a whole. If Deputy Lynch is dealing with individual homelessness cases, it is extremely important they are brought to the Minister's attention. I would not like a message to go out from this House that changes in the social welfare budget have resulted in people being made homeless. That is not the intention. I have no doubt that individual cases will be dealt with to the satisfaction of Deputy Lynch and the people involved.

I am not sure if I misheard, or did the Deputy say, "If women have our way, society will be a better place"?

If women have our say.

I do not necessarily disagree that if we have our way, society will be a better place.

I too will deal with the issue of migrant workers. Yesterday, towards the end of her speech, the Minister stated she would bring forward amendments to the social welfare code on Committee Stage. During the debate on the Nice referendum many scaremongers suggested that on the accession of the ten new members in May 2004, there would be an influx of people seeking work as well as those trying to avail of our very generous social welfare system. One can frame the argument in any way one wants. For example if one wants to criticise the budget and the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, one will comment on all the things we have not done in the social welfare system, however, if one wants to make an argument for keeping people from the accession states from coming here, one will refer to the very generous social welfare system. It is a case of adapting the arguments to one's viewpoint.

It is true that our social welfare system is generous, but let us cast our minds back to when we joined the European Economic Community in 1973. It was our hope that Ireland would benefit economically and socially from membership and that as our country developed economically we would be able to live here and our children would be able to grow up and live and work here. Thankfully, that has turned out to be the case. It is true that in the early years of membership, Irish people had to emigrate, but they emigrated to find gainful work and not to claim social welfare payments in other countries. Their hope was that one day they would return to Ireland. The situation is not any different for the citizens of the ten accession countries that will join the EU on 1 May 2004. They also want their country to develop economically and socially and I have no doubt the vast majority would like to live and raise their children in their own country if it can develop economically. It is true that a number of workers, like Irish people in the past, will leave to gain employment in other European countries. It is unfair to scaremonger. If a person wants to work here, he or she will be welcomed with open arms. Last year 47,000 work permits were granted to non-nationals to meet the labour market shortage. It is expected that 80% to 90% of the jobs for which people had work permits will now be filled by citizens from the accession countries. Those workers are needed in the labour market and they have a major contribution to make to our economy. Irish people do not object to workers doing a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. I do not believe that abuses of the social welfare system will occur.

When the Minister was interviewed on the media some weeks ago, she stated that if our social welfare system became over-burdened, she would do something about it. She sent out a message that the social welfare system and the taxpayers who fund it have to be protected. I have no doubt the Minister wants to do the correct thing in that regard.

Other European countries have put certain safeguards in place and I wonder if this was forced upon them by similar scaremongering in their media which may have represented the situation differently from what ultimately may happen. Time will tell. If our experience is anything to go by, I believe people who come to Ireland will come to work. In any event, the Minister will put the necessary safeguards in place to protect our social welfare system. I look forward to seeing the Committee Stage amendments.

We know from the budget statement that an additional €630 million was provided for improvements in the social welfare system, bringing the total spend to €11.26 billion, an increase of 7% for 2004. How anybody could criticise the Minister for presiding over an extremely generous social welfare package is extraordinary. Sometimes the memory of those on the Labour Party benches is short. When in Government, with a Labour Party Minister for Finance, the levels of increase in social welfare payments were miserable and did not keep in line with inflation. At that time there was no attempt to deal with the provision of child care for mothers who wanted to participate in the work force. As a woman I recognise that child care places a huge financial burden on families, but the serious increase in child benefit that has occurred in the past five years has made a significant contribution to families. The figures speak for themselves. A comparison of the performance of the Government and the Minister for Social and Family affairs in the past seven years with the previous Government comprising the Opposition parties stands up to scrutiny.

Section 19 provides for the substitution of the existing Part VII of the Pensions Act 1990. Part VII currently provides for equal treatment of men and women in occupational benefit schemes. This new Part III will provide for the implementation of two EU Council directives. These directives relate to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religion, age, race and disability. Part VII will also provide for the prohibition of discrimination based on marital or family status, in accordance with the commitment given in the agreement Sustaining Progress. I recognise that in this section, where a rule of the scheme is found not to comply with the equal treatment provisions it will be rendered null and void and that the more favourable treatment will be backdated to the date the rule was implemented. I further recognise that the numbers affected by these provisions will probably be quite small. It is unknown as yet. Generally, occupational schemes are compliant with the legislation. I welcome the change within the Bill.

Child benefit has increased and improvements have been made to the carer's respite grant in the context of the massive increase in social welfare spending to €11.26 billion in 2004 which is almost double the 1997 provision. Child benefit payments stand at three times the 1997 level. If speakers like Deputy Lynch have criticisms, it is important that they be fair and balanced by acknowledging some of the improvements which have been made. Some of her criticisms, particularly on rent allowance, were unfounded. I hope she brings the case she mentioned to the attention of the Minister. It was unfair of the Deputy to speak about child care without recognising the substantial increase in child benefit payments. It is also unfair to lay criticism at the door of the current Minister for Social and Family Affairs simply because she is a woman.

It is a sexist remark.

The Minister should withdraw that.

It is a pity that these sexist remarks often come from women. Are we saying it is acceptable if child benefit increases are not so significant when a man occupies the office of Minister for Social and Family Affairs?

It is men who run the country.

Since the foundation of the State, the office has been occupied for the most part by men. It is welcome and refreshing to have a female Minister who has acquitted herself extremely well.

She is dodgy on a few issues.

If anyone listened to her a few weeks ago, as I did, he or she will be aware that she is not afraid to go out there. Thankfully, she is very good humoured as she must be, given the comments made about her.

I have to be to listen to this crack from the Opposition.

Women have to be good humoured in this House generally. Whenever we rise to speak, we seem to increase the interest of Members on the opposite side of the House for whatever reason. The Minister acquitted herself very well a number of weeks ago when I heard her speaking on "Today with Pat Kenny".

She must have shares in RTE. She is on it every second day.

The Deputy says that because the Minister acquitted herself extremely well on the programme as well as in the eyes of the public.

Is she doing anything? There are 70,000 children living in poverty.

Deputy Finian McGrath will have the opportunity to make his contribution. The listenership was free to phone the show and people did. The Minister answered the queries made to her extremely well on behalf of the Government and I compliment her on that.

Child benefit is a universal payment which is made directly to families. Therefore, it is a very efficient and effective method for the Government to channel money to support children. The rate for the first two children has been increased by €6 per month and by €8 for the third and subsequent child. These significant increases are provided under section 3 of the Bill and bring the monthly rate to €131.60 and to €165.30, respectively. As I have mentioned, the rates are already three times what they were in 1997. The current payment represents a €77.64 increase per month for the first two children and €94.20 for a third and subsequent child since 2000.

The programme for Government features a commitment to carers to expand the income limits used to determine entitlement to carer's allowance. There is also a commitment to examine carer's respite grant. I recognise that the budget and this Bill address those commitments. Following the 2004 Budget Statement, the amount of income disregarded in the means test will be increased to €250 in the case of a single person and €500 in the case of a couple. Section 4 of the Bill increases the annual respite care grant by €100 from €735. Carers looking after more than one person will receive a grant of €1,670, which represents an increase of €200. Those increases will apply from June 2005.

We would all like to see carers rewarded to a greater extent. In all of our constituencies, we recognise the significant role carers play in our society. While it would be great to see more generous provisions put in place, we must recognise that this is a move in the right direction. It comes 18 months into the Government programme. I ask the Minister to focus on this issue over the next three and a half years. We must be sensitive to the role of carers in our society and, perhaps, display more generosity in future. Having said that, I recognise the work which has been done. One cannot reinvent the system overnight.

Section 7 of the Bill provides for an increase in the minimum amount of unemployment assistance payable where the claimant's means are derived from parental income. The payment has been increased by €8.20 per week, bringing the minimal amount payable from €31.80 to €40, provided the claimant establishes an entitlement to unemployment assistance. I welcome the change. It is a positive increase which will provide some comfort.

A number of weeks ago, I spoke in the House on the Civil Registration Bill. I recognise that the Department of Social and Family Affairs is carrying out a great deal of work in the area of the e-Government strategy. When one registers the birth of a child, an application for child benefit is automatically made. It is good to see such improvements right across the Department's responsibilities. I compliment the Minister for pressing forward with this programme. It is the way of the future. In some areas, Members are not so inclined to move forward with technology and we have had a significant debate on electronic voting recently. In the Department of Social and Family Affairs, however, there are great benefits to be gained from pursuing this strategy and I give it every encouragement.

The Minister has presided over a very generous social welfare budget. I welcome the improvements included in the Bill before us. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about migrant workers, the effects of the 1 May accession and the changes she proposes to make to the Bill on Committee Stage. Much of the scaremongering which has gone on in the media must be recognised for what it is. It is important to send people the message that accession may not turn out to be the great problem some people anticipate. In fact, many workers who come here from the ten accession states will provide significant economic and social benefits. It is clear that the labour market needs these workers. Without them, we will be unable to progress in the manner we would like.

I compliment the Minister. She has come in for some criticism today and it is sad to see her gender brought into a debate. She is doing an excellent job and I wish her every success. I commend the Bill to the House.

I wish to share time with Deputies Cuffe and Ferris.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

This Bill, the budget from which it arises and the previous six budgets of the Government have missed the opportunity to build a fairer, inclusive society in which every person is respected and provided with sufficient means. Poor people in this country have been asked to wait again when they have waited for long enough already. The significant gap between rich and poor here is the widest in the EU. If the approach of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs is followed in the years ahead, our society will become even more deeply divided than it is now. This scenario is unfair, unacceptable and unsustainable.

Ireland is no longer poor. While our per capita income is one of the highest in Europe, our infrastructure and social provision are far below the EU average. We have growing poverty rates, unequal income distribution, a growing gap between rich and poor and our health and education systems are underequipped.

These are visible signs of the extensive gap between rich and poor in Ireland. The manner in which the Bill and the previous seven budgets have been framed comes down to political decisions and political choices. Those choices, which are short-sighted, are deeply divisive and have created a two-tier society. It is clear from the outturn from last year's Government accounts that resources exist to build a fair and inclusive society. The outturn for the 2003 accounts will show that the current budget had a surplus of €3 billion which could have been used to ensure a fairer society.

Since coming to power in 1997 the rich-poor gap has widened by approximately €290 per week for a single person on long-term unemployment assistance compared to a person on a salary of €50,000 per year. The gap of €294 per week amounts to €15,500 per annum. That is not taking into account that those on sufficient incomes can subscribe to the special incentive savings scheme. The poor do not have that opportunity. There is no doubt there is a widening gap between the better off and the poor. That is unjust and unfair, is bad for social cohesion and leads to social exclusion. If democracy is to be supported and protected that trend will have to be reversed urgently.

The Bill provides for an increase of €10 in unemployment assistance, bringing the payment up to €134. It is not possible for anybody to live on that amount with dignity. There is a huge gap to be made up between now and 2007 in respect of the national anti-poverty strategy guidelines. By 2007 the unemployment assistance rate for a single person should be €182.70 or an increase of €50 from today. The Bill does not go far enough in bridging that gap.

Following the budget the Minister announced a number of severe cutbacks amounting to €58 million. Out of a total budget of €40 billion this amount is minuscule. Unfortunately, the Minister has targeted the poorest in society to face these cutbacks whereas the well off, who are supported by the Government, could well come up with the €58 million. Some of those cutbacks are serious. The back-to-education allowance has been almost abolished, the conditions for rent supplement have been severely restricted and the crèche supplement has been abolished. Single parents who wish to attend courses are not in a position to do so. The diet supplement for those on low income who suffer from coeliac disease or diabetes has been abolished from 1 January for new applicants. Another cutback has come to my notice in recent days. Where no bed was available in a nursing home run by the health board, the board paid supplementary welfare allowance in respect of the shortfall for nursing homes in the event that sons and daughters on basic incomes were unable to make up the difference. That allowance, however, has been abolished.

There are many myths out there, among them is the myth that Ireland will give one a fine welcome if one comes here. Another myth is that Ireland is one of the most child-friendly countries in Europe. The terms of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill shatter many of those myths. What they bring home to us is that we are not that child-friendly and we are not that welcoming. If anything, we are copperfastening some of the inequities that have plagued Irish society over the past generation. For example, the restrictions on social welfare benefits will apply equally to nationals of all EU states. What a glorious signal we are sending out on May day. As we commemorate the historic struggle of working people throughout the world we in Ireland are saying that we will restrict payments. We say, "come to Ireland, but only if you are ready to work". There is a sound in the distance of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, cranking up the drawbridge to Ireland Limited and saying that no non-Irish need apply unless they are prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel and work.

That has always been the case. This is a myth. Anyone, no matter where they come from in the EU, can come here as long as they are not a burden on the State.

We are increasing the restrictions with the passage of this Bill and the Minister's announcements in recent days. Deputy Andrews made what seems to be a generous suggestion that illegal workers from the eight accession countries should now be allowed work here legally. The more one looks at that suggestion the less generous it is. Is he proposing that they go back to their countries and come back in again because they can do so legally? Why not have a more generous amnesty? Why not grant a right to remain here to all those who are in Ireland illegally? Why not grant a right to remain to all parents of Irish citizens? If that cannot be done, why not grant a right to remain for all parents of Irish citizens born before 23 January 2003, when the Supreme Court ruling was made? Let us have a little generosity and show an Irish welcome to those who have come to our shores. Despite the words of the Supreme Court, all Irish citizen children are not being treated equally in Ireland and children are being deported despite the pronouncements from various Departments.

On the issue of maternity benefit the Minister said we will have generous benefits of 16 weeks in total. Most countries in western Europe have far more generous benefits. Burkina Faso in Africa has the same benefits as Ireland, and Belarus has even more benefits. Let us not kid ourselves but point out that Ireland is not that good in the league table, even in western Europe, where countries such as Denmark give 18 weeks of fully-paid leave from work and France gives from 16 to 26 weeks of fully-paid benefit. Therefore, let us not kid ourselves that we are incredibly generous in terms of maternity benefit. What appears to be happening here today is a three-card trick, pushing around the maternity benefit in order that it can be paid fully after the birth of the child.

Let us look at child benefit. The increase of €6 which brings child benefit up to €131.60 is not completely ungenerous. Given that the rate of inflation is 3% to 3.5%, that wipes out three quarters of the increase. Let us not think we are becoming more generous, because we are not. We are simply trying to bring payments up to what they should have been many years ago. Austria, Luxembourg, Finland, France, Sweden, Germany, the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Australia all have much more generous child benefit than Ireland. In fact, it is Portugal and perhaps Greece which fall behind on this scale. Child benefit is not that high in Ireland. If one were to ask a lone parent what he or she thinks of the level of child benefit, that person would agree it has risen dramatically in recent years but has a long way to go. We should not fool ourselves that we are the best in Europe.

The previous speaker referred to crèche supplements, which have been cut back. It is the ultimate irony that the type of benefits paid to run community crèches are paid by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform because, in essence, it is a measure to get parents back into the workplace rather than one to help children and their parents. This represents not a Victorian but a medieval view of the world. Even Victorian industrial philanthropists provided decent care for the children of their workers. They did not pay out money as in Ireland where we simply send children to crèches so their parents can work.

This country has more golf courses than playgrounds. It has failed to put the treatment of children higher up on the ladder of what should be considered. Many parents, specifically lone parents, are trapped in a vicious cycle of disadvantage. I know of mothers struggling to survive in basement flats; the Bill will do little for them. A cycle of disadvantage exists which must be broken. While the Government might point to the Residential Tenancies Bill 2003 as being a step in the right direction, it will allow landlords to raise rents at the drop of a hat.

There are many myths regarding Ireland and its generosity towards the less advantaged, those who come from abroad and children. Such myths must be seen for what they are. We are not as generous as we would like to believe and we are not an equitable society.

In 1985, the fuel allowance was £5 per week. Depending on stock market fluctuations caused by currency speculators, this works out at approximately €6.35 per week. Therefore, over 20 years successive Governments, in which almost every party in this House has served, have managed to increase the fuel allowance by less than €3, a statistic which is nothing short of staggering and an absolute disgrace.

According to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, cash assistance for the provision of fuel and electricity increased by 38% last year. Research carried out by Dr. Jonathan Healy at UCD, and published at the beginning of this month, indicates that one in ten households suffer from persistent fuel poverty. This is one of the worst records in western Europe. The report goes on to state: "Ireland has the second highest seasonal variation on mortality in Europe", and suggests that fuel poverty could be a factor in as many as 2,000 winter deaths. According to a department of social development strategy and consultation document on fuel poverty, in the Six Counties another 1,300 deaths every winter are linked to the fact that people cannot keep warm in the coldest months of the year.

It is sobering to imagine that, in the midst of so much obvious wealth in this country, people are literally freezing to death; people who can only afford to heat their homes for a short period each day and who stay in bed all day to keep warm. Apart from the obvious material want involved, we are talking about human beings who have no quality of life and are reduced to a basic struggle for survival.

As with most things in life, it is those in the lowest socio-economic groups who suffer most. Almost one in four unemployed people experience fuel poverty and almost one in five lone parents are in a similar position. The most vulnerable in our society — older people, children, the chronically sick and disabled — are most likely to be counted amongst the fuel poor. No Member of this House is unacquainted with the plight of the elderly and what they must suffer, endure and give up to heat their homes.

In many rural areas, houses were built between the 1940s and the 1960s which do not have the necessary wall cavity or other insulation. Elderly people living in such homes must spend a greater percentage of their pensions — well above the rate of the allowance — to try to keep warm. This is a massive indictment on this House and those who make the decisions which condemn the elderly, in particular, to that type of poverty.

Some 347,000 households benefit from the fuel allowance scheme which runs for 29 weeks and provides an income of €9 per week. This can be increased if one lives in certain areas where only smokeless fuel is permitted. As I pointed out, €9 is not much of an increase after almost 20 years. A substantial increase in energy efficient housing is needed, as is the education of people to make their homes more energy efficient, even to the extent of providing small grants if it would help them use less energy or force them to spend less on fuel. This is important and we should work towards its achievement.

There is a need for a cross-departmental approach to the issue. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government earlier this week told my colleague, Deputy Crowe, that it is following up on a survey undertaken in 2003 to establish the number of local authority dwellings without central heating. Local authorities need to put specific programmes in place to tackle this problem, and they must be properly funded to do so. There has not been a recent budget in which the minuscule increase for the elderly in particular is not soaked up by the cost of rent for local authority housing. Funding is given with one hand and taken away with the other, which leaves the elderly in the same position, or worse off given the growing inflation they must endure.

I was contacted last week by a mother of four whose husband receives social welfare as well as undergoing tests for what could be a serious illness. She began work but, because she earns €4 over the €300 per week limit, her husband's entitlements have been penalised and he will not receive entitlements for his children. This is an example of the type of society in which we live. The Bill does nothing to rectify it.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the focus of the previous speaker on fuel poverty. He is correct that it is extraordinary, given the current wealth and prosperity in Ireland and the closing of the income gap since 1997, that thousands still experience fuel poverty. One reason for this seems to be, as the previous speaker suggested, the poor insulation of older housing. In my own area of Tallaght, houses were built as recently as the 1980s without central heating being fitted in supposedly modern homes. While the local authorities, making the most of their budgets, are trying to fit such homes with central heating, I accept the logic of Deputy Ferris's argument that it is a tragedy such is the case in this day and age.

I am glad Deputy Ferris, in contrast to the two speakers before him, chose to focus attention on a practical and tangible matter, which we all accept is inequitable and wrong and which should be rectified. I deliberately contrast that with the contributions of Deputies Cuffe and Healy. Deputy Cuffe focused on a rather odd view, saying that the notion of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform giving out child care grants represented Victorian values. The purpose of that Department is not just to focus on justice issues. There is an equality dimension to its work, which is why those grants are delivered by that Department.

A key element in Government strategy in recent years has been the insistence on equality in all aspects of Irish life. This is legally guaranteed and delivered in our new equality Acts. Child care is central to this because before the Government and its predecessor came to power in 1997, we had a very low rate of female participation in the workforce. We were 5% to 6% off the European average in that respect but thanks to the good work of this Government we have now arrived at the happy position where female participation is ahead of the European average, which is a remarkable achievement by the Government. Through the mix of social welfare and taxation packages the Government has managed to focus on a single issue, female participation in the workforce, which afflicted the economy.

The increases in child benefit in the Bill add to that focus. Deputy Cuffe mentioned the rate at which child benefit has increased, saying we are not the best in Europe. We may not be the best, but we have come a long way. The Government has achieved 89% of what it promised in 1997 for child benefit. It promised to increase child benefit to a level where it has a meaningful impact on the financial burden of child care and parenting responsibilities which falls on both single parents and those in marriages or relationships. I am glad we are getting there.

I was disappointed with Deputy Healy's contribution, which seemed to consist of the usual clichés one hears from what is broadly termed the poverty industry. He mentioned levels of poverty and the widening income gap, but in the huge growth years between 1999 and 2001, before the general downturn and the stock market collapse, we had extraordinary growth of 9% or 10% year-on-year. Economists say it is a documented economic phenomenon that during periods of intense high growth there is an apparent widening of the income gap before it closes again. We are now seeing evidence of the income gap closing again in line with general economic practice. It is not just me asserting this. I was very interested in a submission the Combat Poverty Agency made to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. That body is not a Government agency, nor is it known for concurring with Government pronouncements. Its view was that the budget was a redistributive budget in favour of the less well-off, which is borne out by the facts. The social welfare package is well ahead of inflation. If we delivered the percentage increases in the budget across all categories of social welfare payments or to middle or high earners, the Opposition would be screaming blue murder about the inequities of the Government's budgetary and social welfare strategy. The budget is the first sign that recovery is under way in our economy and internationally. It is the first tangible signal that our party and Government is in favour of redistributing to the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. If anyone was caught by the budget it was the middle income and high income classes, as they did not get the kind of tax cuts they received in recent years.

I was delighted the Minister said we will be tightening up procedures for granting social welfare payments to those who come from the accession countries. We should be clear that most of the people who come from those countries come with a view to working and participating fully in our economy. To date they have had to get work permits and 16,500 of the 47,000 work permits issued in 2003 went to people from the ten accession states. That shows the willingness of those people to work in Ireland as well as our need for them, given the obvious skills gaps and shortages that still exist in our growing economy. As the Tánaiste indicated, I expect that 70% to 80% of our work permit needs going forward will be taken up by those from the accession countries.

We have seen the Blunkett reforms in Britain and I expect the tightening of the social welfare code to focus on the rigorous definition and enforcement of "inactive". I was surprised at Deputy Cuffe's ignorance of the basic social welfare code. In his enthusiasm to welcome the welfare shopper from elsewhere he seems to have overlooked the fact that there is an obligation on a person in the State — and in most other European states — to show a willingness to be actively seeking work. One cannot wait for an offer of work to be made. There is an obligation on Irish citizens as well as those coming to Ireland from elsewhere to actively seek work and I suspect an amendment to the Bill will address the definition of "actively seeking work". That will ensure Ireland does not become a country favoured by those who want to come to a country just to draw down social welfare benefits rather than contributing by work. That is an important difference. We are trying to give a positive signal to citizens of those accession countries that they are welcome to come to Ireland to work. This is happening already and when I flew to London for a meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body — it was at the time of Mr. Blunkett's announcement — the two stewardesses on the plane were from Poland and Latvia. We will not need a huge panoply of restrictions such as those introduced in the UK, which has more pressing problems. It is a much larger economy with port and tunnel access to the Continent and is more likely to be a destination for those seeking to abuse the system. That is why its system must be tighter than ours.

We have had strong economic growth and we need outside labour to fill jobs we cannot fill ourselves. We are in a rather benign position in that we do not have to take the extreme measures the UK has had to take to curb this phenomenon, although we must be careful. We should applaud the Minister for Social and Family Affairs' declared intentions, which have been echoed by the Taoiseach. We operate in a single travel area with the UK and we have been the victims of illegal migration in the past. Ireland was advertised on websites as a place illegal migrants should go because of the ease of access to our social welfare payments.

I listened carefully to Opposition speakers and it should be underlined in debates like this that following the success of a particular party in an election, its programme for Government spells out what it intends to do over the following five years. It is incorrect for the Opposition to continue to say election promises are not being fulfilled. One has to look at what was achieved by the Government between 1997 and 2002 and one must then go back to the start of this Government's term in office. One can then see the promises made and understand that from the time of the election, those promises have been fulfilled.

The Minister has indicated that almost 86% of what was committed in the programmes for Government since 1997 has been fulfilled and I have no doubt that, during the lifetime of this Government, we will see further fulfilment of the commitments given to the electorate during the course of the previous general election.

I compliment the previous Administration as well as this one because the improvements have not just been percentage increases in the amounts of money, pensions or benefits paid, and we can go through the figures because the Minister has spelled them out clearly. There have also been real figure increases in the value of pensions since 1997, which have made a substantial difference to the lives of the people who receive them.

Another issue which has been raised in other debates on social welfare and to which Deputy Ferris referred is "elderly-proofing". I agree with him that we should "elderly-proof" everything we do. The elderly should be protected at all costs in our approach to legislation on social welfare and regulations for local government. The benefits should be substantial enough to ensure they have a good quality of life and that any problems which arise should be addressed immediately and efficiently by the Government. We owe it to that generation to acknowledge them in a real way because we now enjoy the fruits of their labour.

The issue of the payment of fuel allowances has been raised in this debate. It should be noted that it is within the remit of the revenue programme of local authorities to devote some of those funds to the provision of central heating systems in the homes of the elderly. For example, Kilkenny Borough Council allocated almost €150,000 from that account to the provision of systems in the homes of the elderly throughout the city. The scheme has worked and given great relief to the people who had systems installed.

One does not always have to look to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and a particular line in the budget because such schemes can be provided through other funds. Therefore, rather than condemning the Government, we should use our imaginations, examine schemes and initiatives which have been undertaken elsewhere and implement them throughout the country.

Each year since 1997, I have asked for the differential rents applied by local authorities to exempt in some way the increases achieved in different budgets for the elderly and those in receipt of that kind of benefit. We need to address that from a local authority point of view.

I welcome the Minister's provisions for carers. The income disregards have been increased and the increase in the carer's respite care grant must also be welcomed. However, we must continue to address the issue. The amount of work undertaken by carers in a voluntary capacity is being acknowledged by the payments but is not being acknowledged enough. Every little helps in terms of the care of a family member or an elderly person. Carers make a major contribution and relieve the State of a huge burden given the care which would be expected if those cared for were in hospital.

I recently met a lady who is almost blind and asked Eircom for a telephone with large number keys. One would imagine that she would have been accommodated since the appliances do not cost much. However, Eircom made a huge hassle of the fact that she was not in receipt of the correct type of benefit for an application to be accepted from her for that type of appliance. In that context, if we "elderly-proof" everything we do, we will come up with much better packages and a more even-handed treatment of the elderly and those who require such benefits and attention.

In the late 1990s, the rent allowance scheme cost in the region of €5 million. I remember the figure from a meeting with the then Minister. I understand the rent allowance scheme will cost in the region of €375 million this year. The time has come for us to examine local authority housing policy and how housing accommodation units are delivered in the context of voluntary housing and the rent supplement scheme. I am not asking for rent supplement to be removed, rather that we consider the construction of local authority houses in the traditional manner in large numbers, having due recognition of the profile of the applicant now on housing lists, especially elderly single men and women who find themselves locked in a situation from which they cannot get out unless there is local authority intervention.

We must examine the concept of voluntary housing. In the past, people were allowed to purchase and move on, by which means a ladder was created. That has now been removed from the voluntary housing sector and, as long as the policy is in place, the rent allowance system will continue to grow enormously in terms of the Estimate for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Therefore, we must use our imaginations in regard to the types of schemes which need to be introduced and the types of housing required.

I welcome that the Minister will introduce amendments on Committee Stage to deal with people who may possibly come to Ireland after EU enlargement. Deputy Cuffe stated that we should leave the gates open and allow anyone who likes come here. That is fine but we have a duty to examine Government costs as well as one to taxpayers and what is being delivered on their behalf. A system with no regulation will not work. Given that the United Kingdom and other countries have moved in this direction, Ireland will have to do likewise. The Minister is examining this issue and I encourage her to bring forward the regulations for this new development to protect current social welfare recipients and those likely to come on stream and ensure the right of taxpayers to be considered in the equation.

It must also be acknowledged that businesses in Ireland relied on 40,000 work permits last year. We cannot get away from that fact. We would be foolish not to take into consideration what is happening elsewhere in the European Union and how the matter is being dealt with. It would be wrong for Ireland to be singled out for our approach. I encourage the Minister to bring forward those amendments and I will support them.

There is an issue with crèches and child care. In spite of the fact that issue was taken with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform administering this fund, it must be acknowledged that the Department has made huge sums available to private crèches and communities. The positive impact that investment has had on community life by enabling people to get back into education and work is tremendous. It is to be encouraged rather than criticised by the Opposition.

I wish to share time with Deputies Murphy and Connolly.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this important Bill. Like other speakers, I agree with Deputy McGuinness that we should look after those on social welfare, including those on disability benefit, unemployment benefit, single mothers and old age pensioners. Unfortunately, however, life is becoming increasingly difficult for those in receipt of social welfare. The gap has grown between the rich and the poor and some are not being looked after as they should.

In this context, the group that stands out the most is carers. Members said yesterday that if old people or the less well-off were not being cared for in their own homes, they would be in nursing homes, which is true. It would cost the State more money than it is costing today. Four or five families in my community who are caring for older people are not getting one cent from the State because they are not entitled to it. These families do not want to put these older people into nursing homes which are subsidised by the State. These people should be looked after.

In my county of Wexford, a lot of voluntary fundraising is carried out for the Carers' Association. This helps to run the association and makes it possible to carry out the work. I compliment those who do such fundraising because without them the carers' association would be in serious trouble. I compliment the carers who are at the coalface in this regard. Some older people can be very difficult to manage and keep happy, but carers feel they have a duty to look after them. I ask the Minister to look after older people and assist the carers' association because these people are very committed to the work they are doing.

Reference was made to the fuel allowance. It is not often I agree with Deputies Ferris and Lenihan, but on this occasion I agree with them. People come to me, particularly older people, whose fuel allowance is not adequate to heat their homes on a weekly basis. Many local authority houses, which are six to ten years old, have just one radiator while others have no radiators. Under EU law, heating in local authority houses must reach a certain standard. I am not criticising Wexford County Council or Enniscorthy Town Council, which do a great job, but many local authority tenants do not have sufficient heating.

Like other Deputies, each day of the week people come to me with social welfare problems. I recognise that the Minister has made available an extremely good helpline for the benefit of Deputies and Senators, which is important. However, we come across some of the most ridiculous cases, including people who have had their unemployment assistance cut off. These people must get letters and go through a whole process. If one's unemployment benefit is discontinued, one must get letters from approximately ten employers in the local town or parish, appear before a referee and the whole process begins again. This should be reconsidered.

The gap has grown between the rich and poor. Following the last budget, CORI said that budget 2004 was a small down-payment on the implementation of the Government's commitments to social exclusion contained in the current national agreement and, despite the Minister's claims, the impact of the budget initiatives would be relatively limited in tackling the substantial poverty, inequity and social exclusion which persist in Ireland today. The Government has a lot to do under Sustaining Progress. Speakers on the other side of the House referred to what was done in 1994-97. The economy has been strong from 1997 to the present day but the Government has not tried to close the gap between the rich and poor, which continues to widen. The Minister should look at this aspect.

It is sad to see people homeless and living in bad conditions, a matter to which the Minister must give serious consideration. The Government has made major social welfare commitments but there is little done and much more to do. There is a long way to go before social exclusion is tackled effectively. The Government must get its house in order and do something about the promises it made. It must not allow the gap between the rich and the poor to widen.

The Government has been in power for the past seven years and we are told on a daily basis about the millions of euro being spent on one or other social welfare programme. However, we should look at the real facts.

In the past ten years, Ireland has spent less each year on social welfare as a percentage of GDP than any other European Union country. In 2000, payments to the unemployed, sick, elderly, homeless and disabled amounted to 14.1% of GDP in Ireland compared to 27.3% in other European countries. Despite Ireland enjoying the economic success of the Celtic tiger, the percentage of GDP spent by the Government on social welfare is decreasing each year. In 1992, social expenditure accounted for 20% of GDP and has decreased on a yearly basis ever since.

Government spokespersons jump up and down comparing increases in social welfare to those of previous Administrations, but the facts are simple. Under the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, social welfare recipients and the poor are getting less of the national cake. England spends up to 30% more on social welfare payments per capita, at a time when Ireland has one of the highest per capita incomes in Europe. According to ERSI reports, the number of people living below the poverty line continues to increase. The report clearly states that during the term of office of the Government the number of people living below the poverty line has more than doubled from 6% to 13%. The report also found a widening gap between the haves and the have nots at a time of increased employment and increased economic growth. There is no doubt that social welfare payments have increased by more than the rate of inflation, but social welfare payments are not keeping pace with wages.

Last week, we discussed increases in motor tax and shortly before that we discussed increases in ESB, diesel, waste collection, visits to hospitals and a whole series of stealth taxes. Fuel costs for home heating absorb 24% of income for the elderly living on the basic old age pension. For people on low incomes, the most damaging stealth tax is the increase in VAT on essential items, which absorbs a much higher proportion of their income than is the case for better off households. The only thing social welfare recipients can be sure of is a daily diet of more stealth taxes in a culture that is becoming more and more a rip-off culture.

The Minister introduced cuts in the budget under the guise of tidying up some anomalies she claimed were evident in the rent subsidy system and MABS payments. It is notable that she did not tidy up anomalies that would have made things better for social welfare recipients. Applicants for non-contributory old age pensions are still assessed as if their savings were earning nearly 10%. Everyone knows that interest on savings in bank accounts or ordinary post office savings accounts is almost nil. Pensioners with savings need some of this money on a constant basis to live on and cannot make long-term investments. It would be interesting to know if the Minister will correct this anomaly and instruct social welfare inspectors to calculate interest on pensioners' capital at 2% to reflect the real income value of their meagre investment, mostly savings they have built up over a lifetime. People in receipt of non-contributory pensions constantly have to draw on these savings for day-to-day living expenses. These factors are combined with the knowledge that most pensioners know they must have a reserve of thousands of euro if they are forced into a nursing home for any period. The fear of being destitute and of not being able to afford nursing home care when they become extremely ill or incapacitated, is a horrendous burden our elderly have to bear on a daily basis.

Likewise, those on unemployment assistance of €144 per week are living well below the poverty line. Many spend as much on a night out as these people have to live on for a week. There has been no increase in the living alone allowance since 1996. This is creating massive problems for the people concerned. Age Action Ireland has constantly recommended bringing the living alone allowance up to the adult equivalent rate of a couple.

The Estimates published in November included 16 cuts in the area of social welfare. The thinking behind these measures was influenced more by ideology than by financial considerations. The cuts will have a devastating impact on people affected but will save only €55 million.

Last year the Government introduced a measure capping rent supplement levels. This year it made rent supplements almost impossible to get by introducing the six-month regulation. Another cut instructs community welfare officers to end MABS payments. As with the rent allowance change, one effect of the MABS cutbacks will be to restrict the range of discretion available to community welfare officers in their work to fight genuine hardship. The savings involved in MABS cutbacks are only in the region of €750,000 out of an overall social welfare budget of €637 million for 2004. The Minister said restrictions were being placed on MABS payments because people concerned had entered into repayment arrangements that were too onerous. What is the Minister trying to achieve? Is she trying to drive these people into the hands of moneylenders which would make their position even worse? MABS is the last resort, a financial rescue package negotiated by her Department, and no better deal could be achieved than this deal. What exactly does the Minister and the Department think these people should do? This cutback at any one time may affect only 400 to 500 people and the impact of it on these families will be disastrous. The number of families in this category will grow because MABS will no longer be able to rectify their problems. The Minister is creating a major problem for the future by scrapping a good system that worked well for families who got into serious financial trouble. Again the impact is great while the saving involved is minuscule.

The Minister for Finance considers himself to be a reforming Minister and there is no doubt that he has reformed the tax system for the benefit of the wealthier sections of the community. The Minister might give particular attention to carers, as such consideration might result in a saving of money. The Tánaiste is correct, if what she is trying to do is initiate debate on care for the elderly. Two incomes of some description are needed in every household, if only to pay the mortgage. It would be far more economic and humane if care for the elderly was oriented towards the elderly being looked after at home rather than towards expensive institutions for which middle and low income families cannot afford to pay and the State is not prepared to pay. A complete review of the means testing of carer's allowance is required, together with examining what relief could be given through the tax system.

A series of issues arise in the cutbacks which will badly affect the less well-off. There was no increase in the back to school allowance and no real effort to end child poverty. For several months prior to the budget, we were treated to dire economic warnings and told of the need for a tough budget to maintain competitiveness. However, this year's prediction of disaster turned out to be unfounded.

There were no increases of €1.70 such as those the Deputy's party introduced when in government.

It is clear from the outturn of the figures that money was available and there was no need for these drastic and disastrous cuts.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. It gives effect to some of the social welfare changes in budget 2004. The Government has again let slip an opportunity to reduce the width of the gap between the rich and the poor.

In the area of social welfare, we have an unenviable record when compared to any of the other EU countries and many of the accession states which we will welcome into the European Union on 1 May. The proportion of GDP spent on social welfare continued to shrink during the tiger years of the 1990s and we rank in the lower echelons of the industrialised nations. The €8.20, or less than €1.20 per day, increase in unemployment assistance is another instance of the Government's legendary niggardliness.

Child care has once again suffered with the token €8 monthly increase for the first two children and €10 for subsequent children. How can parents be expected to feed, clothe, shoe and pay for bus fares, school books and stationary for a child on an extra €2 per week, or 30 cent daily, and an annual back to school clothing and footwear allowance of €30?

Social welfare recipients' children have the same tastes in designer labels and gear as other children. These labels are pumped at them on an hourly basis through advertising. Parents are put under intolerable pressure to deliver the goods. They are expected to provide the right type of kit, football jerseys, runners, etc. I remember hearing 15 years ago that was the trend across the water and that it would come here. That trend is here and every child has an expectation of wearing gear with the right types of labels or logos.

I have often heard of lorry loads of replica jerseys and discs being seized. What becomes of those? Is the Government renting a warehouse to stock these goods? Does it give them away or put them in an incinerator? What happens to replica goods seized here? When diesel is seized, what is done with it? Is it given out free or what becomes of it?

The €131.60 monthly child benefit payment for each of the first two children is significantly short of the aspirations expressed in the programme for Government when it expressed the intention to raise this payment to €158 per month. Similarly, the payment for the third and subsequent children will be pitched at €165.30, which is considerably short of the expressed aim of €196 per month. In families where both parents are required to work outside the home, child care costs are crippling. The weekly amounts of €25 to €30, which these payments represent, are a mere pittance if a family has to shell out in excess of €200 weekly on child minding costs. I am not suggesting that child minders are the problem. They have to live and pay the same types of bills, including bills in regard to schooling, as the rest of us.

We should examine the provision of crèche facilities in workplaces, particularly workplaces that have a certain number of employees, especially female employees. The Government should encourage that type of policy, to have crèches on site. In places of employment where the number of employees is above a certain number, the employers should be compelled to move in that direction. It is no longer a luxury for families to have a dual income; it is no longer an option not to have such a dual income. It is a necessity for both partners to work, as stated by a number of speakers. Often two professional people can find it difficult to get on the household ladder and be able to afford to pay a mortgage. There are insurance costs, school costs and the high price of housing. Budget 2004 succeeded in allocating exactly the same 25% of the promised additional €414 million to child benefit which was only one of the false figures with which the general election was fraudulently purchased.

I welcome the €100 increase in the respite care grant, bringing the level up to €835, but it still falls considerably short of what is adequate. Many of Ireland's unsung heroes are those who daily perform the heroics of caring for parents and elderly relatives. For this reason, the extension of the six week payment after death to include all social welfare recipients is also to be welcomed.

Has the Minister had a change of heart since the last time I spoke on a priority question issue regarding social welfare recipients coming in from the ten accession countries? I detect a change of heart and I would like the Minister to respond.

I would like to share my time with Deputy Killeen.

I welcome the proposals before us today. When it comes to political parties here being true to their word, particularly their commitments at election time and in the programmes for Government, Fianna Fáil has a very proud record over the past 50 years. Without mentioning various incidents, I can give many examples of our opponents not upholding such standards when they were in office. For consistency, there is no one to match the Fianna Fáil Party, and no one to match a Fianna Fáil Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

For historical reasons in my house, when I was growing up the most important Minister in the Cabinet was the Minister in charge of social welfare. I speak for many of the constituents I represent in rural Ireland, whether in Seanad Éireann for 20 years, or in Dáil Éireann since the last general election, when I say the contribution made over the past 50 years by various Ministers with responsibility for social welfare, particularly from my side of the House, has been enormous. Europe can look at examples over the years of how well we look after our older people and how we try to look after the less well-off sections of our community.

It must be a dreadful time to be an Opposition Deputy in the House today, considering all the benefits currently arriving in everyone's area. I have asked many times in my constituency, and I am pleased to ask in the House today — who would ever have thought four or five years ago that the child care benefit for the first and second child would be €131 per month, and €165 per month for the third and subsequent children? I remember when the benefit was less than 50 pence per child, when money was very badly needed.

Does the Deputy remember when one could live on one salary?

Let us give credit where credit is due. The Deputy's constituency is beside mine on the bridge of Finea. As a man from Ulster, with a Minister for Social and Family Affairs from Ulster, the Deputy knows exactly what it would mean in our hard-pressed part of the county, part of the BMW region. Money was urgently needed in those days, and it is lovely to see sections of our community recognised and acknowledged here today.

I am pleased to see that the aspiration of Fianna Fáil, the main party in Government, to give €200 per week to our senior citizens is fast becoming a reality. I know it is the commitment of the Minister that by 2007 this will be the case. I welcome that. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs is a courageous Minister who handles a difficult portfolio with great care, understanding and compassion. Coming from the constituency from which she comes, she knows the importance of the social welfare payments in many rural homes throughout Ireland. All of us here today representing our constituents, though perhaps only for a short time, have been entrusted with that representation, to come to Dáil Éireann and fight the hardest possible battle on their behalf, which I hope we are all doing.

We have been waiting a long time for many of the proposals in this legislation. We would naturally like to see more being done, but the return of the Celtic tiger is imminent. The Minister for Finance too has excelled in his portfolio. His performance and success over seven years have been unprecedented. I know he is widely recognised throughout Europe, and by our partners and close allies in the United States of America. It should be regularly repeated in this House that we appreciate the experience, expertise and determination of Deputy McCreevy in putting our finances in the order they are in today. Those of us in the House in the 1983 to 1987 period can remember only too well the state of the finances then. Some 50,000 people were emigrating annually, inflation was in double figures, bank loan interest rates were as high as 20% and the national debt had doubled. We should give thanks for having strong leadership, good government and good policies brought before the House. Let us welcome them from all sides of the House. Deputy Crawford, another constituency neighbour of mine, will recall those hard, bad old days. People talk of the good old days.

I remember 1977.

The good old days are here, and thankfully we are here as Members of this parliament to welcome them.

Does the Deputy remember when one could survive on one income?

I too welcome the €630 million provided for in the social welfare package of budget 2004, and this legislation which enables the payment of some of that money.

When the Minister was speaking at the opening of the debate, she mentioned that the cost of the social welfare budget is more than €11.25 billion. Nowadays we tend to rattle off these huge figures and take them as a matter of course. It is important that we consider the huge budget required for social welfare, and that we note that this budget has almost doubled since 1997. We frequently hear people talking about the voracious appetite of the health services, for example, which cost about €10 billion annually, or the education services, which cost about €7 billion. People sometimes tend to forget that the welfare provisions of the State are enormously expensive, and that not all of them are within the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

It is good to bear in mind that there are two very substantial benefits from the current high rates of employment. First, those who are employed are making a contribution to the Exchequer by means of tax and PRSI, and second, they are not in need of payments from the social welfare budget while they are employed. The Minister referred to the increases in pensions. There has been an average increase of about €10 in the weekly payment each year since 1997. If anyone were to have said at that time, when the increase was very modest, that such increases would be possible, and would be sustained over a relatively long period, nobody would have believed it. This is a measure of the progress we have made on social issues, particularly regarding older people. The level of pension makes a very significant and positive contribution to the quality of lifestyle of older people.

There remain some difficulties. Some older people have housing problems, and heating creates extra expense for them, as was mentioned earlier. Some of the difficulties can and are being addressed.

The other huge increase is in child benefit, which now stands at three times the 1997 level. It must be frustrating for the Minister in particular, and for other Government Members, that those who highlight poverty issues frequently refuse to acknowledge the very positive impact of child benefit payments. One of the difficulties is that there is not much agreement on the definition of relative poverty, but there is no more effective payment going into any household with children than the child benefit payment, in which the level of increase has been truly staggering. That level of increase would have been considered impossible in 1997, when increases were very modest.

The importance of child care provision for one-parent families in particular, and also for other workers, has been addressed by the Government with considerable success in a number of areas. Quite good work is being done by small private sector operators, along with excellent work in community facilities. Most of the grants for this work comes from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. One might not necessarily think the grants come from that Department, but they do. They are very effective. They provide a considerable number of places. As more places have been provided, they have become more cost-effective. It is an area where much more work needs to be done and where there is a need for the budget of the Department to keep up with the need and the willingness of people in the community and private sectors to become involved in providing these facilities.

I commend the Mid-Western Health Board in my area on introducing a child care management initiative. Its child care service has qualified for the ISO 9002 quality award. Excellent work has been done by the child care service in the Mid-Western Health Board, which I acknowledge.

The recently published Maternity Protection Bill provides for a number of welcome improvements. This is an area in which much progress was made 20 years ago, although relatively little has been made since. There are some anomalies which clearly need to be addressed.

I also welcome the greater use of the personal public service number to provide access to services and to check areas where social welfare payments might be illegally claimed. Strict policing is required in a number of areas, not least in the area of employee pensions and access of employees to personal retirement savings accounts and other pensions.

I welcome the initiatives by the Minster to move towards more joined-up government. In addition to the financial provisions in this legislation, there are legislative provisions which join up with other legislation in a most effective manner. An area where some improvement could be made is in the work of the community welfare officers of the health boards, who do excellent work. I have often thought the system might operate better if they were directly under the ambit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The standard and level of service provided to the public by community welfare officers and by employees of the Minister's Department in the Kilrush Road office in Ennis and elsewhere is excellent. I do not believe anyone could argue that difficulties are encountered by people using that service. Almost universally, I find that people who come to me praise the service provided.

A number of Members referred to the money advice and budgeting service which is now nationwide and was piloted in a number of areas some time ago. It is an effective service and a number of my constituents have begun to use it having come to me about various matters. In my area and other parts of the country, there is considerable evidence that, as a result of the money advice and budgeting service, moneylending and illegal moneylending activities, which were rife throughout the country and hit the headlines seven or eight years ago, have now been successfully dealt with.

I also welcome the provisions of the Bill which clarify a number of anomalies in PRSI. It is an area where there has been a little confusion, but it is certainly cleared up in the Bill. The pensions fund established by the previous Government is a credit to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and those in the Government. There is no doubt but that the burden of State and social welfare pensions down the line will be much larger than at present in relative terms. I have no doubt that the contributions to pension schemes will need to be increased, perhaps fairly substantially. The Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004, which is before the Seanad, deals with this area to some extent.

I support the Minister's decision to extend the provisions in place in almost all EU countries and, more particularly, in the United Kingdom relating to citizens of accession countries who are not workers coming here. It is a regrettable but a necessary decision. I do not believe we had any choice in the matter. It is important to stress that those from accession countries coming here to seek employment will still have full European Union citizen rights and will be welcomed.

The Bill contains some amendments to Part VII of the Pensions Act 1990. Some relate to the equal treatment of men and women in occupational pension schemes. We have an obligation to implement EU initiatives, and the Minister outlined our obligations in that regard. It is fair to acknowledge that the impact of the European Union on social legislation has been positive across most sectors and this is an area where it has been positive. There will be further progress in this area in the equality Bill.

The race directive of 2000 outlined a strong and clear policy to counter discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds in employment and some non-employment areas. A similar directive also from 2000 deals with discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. Besides these grounds, I understand the Minister proposes to extend the Part VII provisions to include Travellers and marital or family status. All Members will have encountered evidence, or at the very least anecdotal evidence, that such discrimination exists. It is notoriously difficult to prove there has been such discrimination, especially in employment. We need to be vigilant in this area and have legislative provisions and enforcement procedures. These are coming into place gradually in the context of the new regime.

The public sector cannot claim a good record in the employment of people with disabilities. Its record has been very poor. The 3% quota, which has been in place for approximately 11 years, is not being reached. Even where it is being reached, it is being used as an excuse for not employing additional people with disabilities who would be in a position to do the jobs adequately and perhaps just as well as others. In the private sector, some companies have an excellent record, but the majority are either not interested or blatantly discriminatory. It is an area we will have to address more vigorously than we have heretofore, not just in legislation but also in enforcement.

It also appears that ageism is becoming a problem, or maybe it is just that I am becoming more attuned to it at this stage in my life. There is some evidence that it is becoming a greater bar to employment than one would have thought previously. The new pension provisions in the Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004 will have the effect of raising the pension age, which is welcome. As a society we have tended to decide that people are effectively unable to perform as employees at a particular age, but that is not the case. Some exemptions are provided for, and my former colleagues in the teaching profession would wish they were among the exemptions, but that is something for which we can argue when that Bill comes before the House. We have been slow to advert to the opportunities to employ older people in a part-time capacity or to extend job sharing facilities to them to keep them in the workforce longer. Clearly, given the scenario developing, there will be no option but to do that. It is appropriate that we begin to move in that direction now rather than wait until we must.

I welcome the raising of the income limit for carers. I referred previously to the degrees of care required by various people and I have tried to argue for a sliding scale. I know that is potentially a nightmare in terms of administration but there is a good case for it. Some beneficiaries have relatively little need while others, who have a significant level of caring need, lose out in the current situation. The abolition of the means test is likely to result in smaller payments to those on lower incomes, which would be counterproductive. At the very least, the other option of examining the relative care needs of those with various levels of disability should be considered.

The respite grant is frequently overlooked, although it is very important for carers looking after disabled persons. An initiative should be taken to extend the respite grant to carers on higher incomes, on whom large demands are being placed.

I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Harkin.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am glad of this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004. I welcome some of the Bill's provisions, including the increase in child benefit, the improvement in the carer's respite grant and the increase in death benefit pensions. These are all positive measures, which are welcome. The Minister's speech contained information about the massive increases in spending on social welfare but that is only because costs have risen. For example, house prices have risen 300% in the past ten years. We get lectures on how social welfare payments have increased since 1997, but no account is taken of the fact that costs have risen in that period.

The Minister mentioned the substantial increase in child benefit and while we agree with that, we understood from the election campaign that the increases would be much greater. The Government has a long way to go towards meeting the promises that were made, and I hope they will be met in time. Many are disappointed that child benefit has not risen to the levels it was supposed to reach in recent years.

I am not quite clear about the proposed changes for the death benefit payment once all the anomalies have been removed from the system. In rural areas, aged brothers and sisters may be living together, but how are such situations covered by the legislation in respect of death benefit payments? Nowadays, marriages may take place in a church or registry office, while in other cases unmarried partners may choose to live together. One of the anomalies I have come across on numerous occasions concerns two aged siblings who have spent all their lives together. When one of them dies, the other feels aggrieved at not receiving the benefit a married partner would receive in a similar situation. Has the Minister considered this matter? Perhaps she can deal with it in her reply. While I welcome the overall thrust of the legislation in this respect, the death of a sibling at any age can prove to be a delicate time for the person who is bereaved. We need to ensure they are dealt with as humanely as possible.

During the debate we heard many lectures from Government backbenchers who seem to be united in telling us about the massive increases that have been paid and how great the Minister is. I would not go so far as to say that she is a great Minister, however.

Perhaps "excellent" is the right word.

No. We will let the people judge that. Can you make the Cavan Deputy behave himself, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

That is Deputy Crawford's job.

Even local authorities have increased the cost of renting houses quite dramatically over the last few years. Every time there is an increase in social welfare payments, there is a corresponding increase in rents, which takes away the value of rent allowance increases. The fact that the cost of living has risen generally was brought home to me this morning. A family living on farm assist, with children aged from 13 to 25 years, has had problems obtaining orthodontic treatment over the years. In the bad old days when social welfare was providing nothing, according to the Government backbenchers——

Was that when Fine Gael was in power?

——three members of that family received orthodontic treatment without any problem. Recently, however, that lady brought her child for orthodontic treatment having been advised that it was a matter of urgency, but she was told it could not be done through the health service. How would the Minister advise such a family living on farm assist? The lady does some cleaning work outside the house for a few hours but it is not a very lucrative job. As a result, the family has to borrow money from the credit union — thank God for the credit union — for the orthodontic treatment, and must pay back the loan over a number of years.

It is no coincidence that yesterday I received a telephone call from a person in a similar situation, with a family of six. Two of that person's children received orthodontic treatment in the so-called bad old days. Now, however, she has been told that, since she lives close to the Border, she should go to Northern Ireland where she might get a better deal because there is no hope of our health service doing it. The general situation facing families should be considered in the context of new costs that did not exist a few years ago. The two cases I have cited prove that orthodontic treatment was available some years ago, whereas it is not available now. If the promised child benefit increases had been provided, such families would have had some means of repaying a loan for orthodontic treatment.

A similar argument can be made concerning medical cards. Families on low income may have received a €10 increase in social welfare — whether they are on farm assist or the dole — but if they do not have a medical card they will have to face a serious economic situation. As I understand it, there are currently 100,000 fewer medical cards than there were a few years ago. That figure was provided in a reply to a parliamentary question. Although the over-70s have been included in the medical card scheme, many people on middle and low incomes are no longer eligible for medical cards. I came across a case recently of a blind woman whose child has a medical card but she does not. These costs must be taken into account when we discuss the overall budgetary measures.

The Minister's own backbenchers have raised questions concerning the cost of child care. In many cases, both partners now have to work outside the home. They may have a low-interest loan but they have high-cost housing, with major repayments to make. In such cases, they have no choice but to pay a child minder. It is hard to find child minders, although there is a good network in my own Border constituency.

I came across a disability case in recent days involving somebody who, having spent a year in part-time employment, was told by the doctor that he cannot return to full-time work. Through some assessment, during which he did not even meet a doctor, he has been told he can no longer work and cannot receive disability benefit either. The Minister would need to sit in my office and see that person crying, in order to understand that he is being dealt with as a nonentity. He did not even meet a medical adviser. There is an opportunity for review following such a meeting. However, he received a note stating that his right to work was guaranteed until next October but in the interim, he received a letter stating he had been knocked off. This is a major anomaly that needs to be addressed.

I refer to the issue of widowed persons, about which I feel strongly. I understand the anomalies that exist but there must be respect for the family unit. The family unit is the centre of the social welfare system and it should be encouraged. I received a telephone call from a widow recently who lost her husband last October. She has four children, two of whom are no longer dependants. She is trying to live on approximately €175 per week but she has a house and a car to run. Nobody should be put in the position where he or she has to sell his or her home or car. Widowed persons aged over 60 have been dealt with reasonably but the position of widowed persons who have lost a spouse at a young age in tragic circumstances must be addressed.

This is supposed to be the era of the Celtic tiger and the family is supposed to be a recognised structure in this State. I acknowledge the argument that will be made regarding lone parents and I have sympathy for them, but measures must be introduced to constructively assist people who get married and find themselves facing such a desperate scenario.

I refer to the changes in the system following the UK Government's decision but I will debate them on another occasion.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. While I welcome the positive aspects of the legislation, we cannot allow ourselves to lose focus on important social welfare matters and the type of society that is being created. We must also wake up to the reality that, despite the great economic advances, a section of our community has been left behind and feels totally excluded from the wider community. If issues such as poverty, low wages, social exclusion, early school leaving, dysfunctional children and homelessness are not addressed, the debate will get nowhere. I call on the Minister to listen first and then act and respond.

There is absolutely no excuse in the Ireland of 2004 to exclude people, and tough decisions must be made to share the State's wealth and resources among the vast majority of its citizens. For example, many in the Cabinet believe the poverty debate is over but I challenge them on the real issues.

I refer to families and poverty. Families with four or more children and lone parent families face the highest poverty risk. While the number of large families in the population is declining, the level of child poverty is relatively high. Approximately 8% of children are at risk of consistent poverty while one quarter of all those aged under 18 live in low income households. Child poverty damages our children's well-being and their future prospects. It is estimated that 5.5% of households, or approximately 71,000, experience consistent poverty. Households headed by someone who is ill or who has a disability are at a relatively high risk of consistent poverty at 11%. However, the risk of poverty among households with incomes below the threshold of €147 per week stands at 54%.

The risk is accentuated by the costs associated with having a disability as well as barriers to full participation in society. Households headed by someone who is unemployed are also at risk, with slightly more than 50% living below the income poverty line while 22% live in consistent poverty. People in households where there is no employment comprise 70% of the consistently poor population. These include people working in the home, the unemployed, retirees and people with disabilities. Low paid employees, meanwhile, account for one quarter of the consistent poor.

While I welcome the increases in child benefit, the respite care grant and the death benefit pension payable to recipients aged over 80, we have a long way to go and more measures need to be implemented. Social disadvantage must be tackled at an early age and the way to do so is through education from the day children are born. We should break the cycle and target the resources at the most needy to have an impact on poverty.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute. I had not intended to contribute but I received a call from a constituent 30 minutes ago and then sought time to raise an issue with the Minister. I have come across the issue previously but this telephone call from a concerned and angry constituent was the straw that broke the camel's back. The person is on disability benefit and he has received a sheaf of letters from those running his local group water scheme stating that if he does not pay in excess of €500 towards the upgrading of the scheme, his water supply will be turned off. Many other constituents are in the same position and I have made representations on their behalf.

The man who called me earlier has been asked to set up a standing order and if he pays €85 per month for the next six months, he may not be cut off. However, people claiming disability benefit cannot afford this. Initially, I thought his was not the responsibility of the Minister and, therefore, I wrote to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in January 2003. At the end of his reply, he stated: "If residents find themselves unable to meet this contribution, they should contact their local community welfare officer who may be able to offer further assistance". We then contacted the community welfare officer and my constituent's appeal was refused on the ground that contributions to group water schemes are not appropriate to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. I have received a number of letters containing that statement on behalf of different constituents.

The buck is being passed from one Minister to another and from one State agency to another. This issue only concerns claimants living in rural Ireland. Elderly people are afraid the postman will bring a letter in the morning threatening to cut off their water supply. I ask the Minister to extend the supplementary welfare scheme to cover people on low fixed incomes, such as social payments, who are in this position so that this threat is not hanging over their heads.

This issue involves a double inequity for people residing in rural Ireland. I live in Sligo town and when I turn on my tap, water flows but I do not pay for it. If I lived in rural parts of Counties Sligo or Leitrim, I would have to pay substantial fees for water. I know of people who must pay in excess of €900 a year for the upgrading and maintenance of their group water scheme. This is a double inequity for people on low fixed incomes because they cannot afford to pay into such schemes. While the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is partially responsible for this issue, I ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to address it under the supplementary welfare scheme.

I am glad to have this opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004. Some years ago we would have debated the Social Welfare Bill much later in the year. We debated the Social Welfare Bill 2003 before Christmas and we are now debating this Bill, which will implement more of the social welfare measures announced in the budget. The recent innovation of bringing social welfare increases forward to January and April has helped all recipients. Until a short time ago social welfare increases used not come on stream until May, July or September. It is because of this welcome development that we must now have a Social Welfare Bill in December and a second Bill early in the new year to implement further measures.

I compliment the Minister on the substantial package she secured in the budget negotiations for the social welfare services and on her success in the Estimates debate. With Deputy Killeen, I pay tribute to the Minister, her officials and her Department on the efficient manner in which they deal with representations and queries, particularly from public representatives. Their help and availability and the efficiency with which the offices are run is appreciated by those of us who bring daily queries about delivery of the social welfare services.

Deputy Finian McGrath quoted figures relating to the measurement of poverty. It is clear that the best way to minimise poverty is to have people at work. The substantial increase in the number of people at work in recent years has been a means of eliminating poverty and reducing the number of households which lack adequate income.

The improvements in the qualifying criteria for a number of schemes introduced by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and her predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, have meant a considerable improvement for many households. Free telephone rental and electricity allowances and other schemes operated by the Department are now available to pensioners, regardless of their household composition. That is a welcome development. Too often in the past, a person who might have qualified for such a scheme was debarred because a family member was living with him or her.

The Minister and I were both in Belfast last weekend and the need to extend the free travel scheme to the whole island was raised with me. Free travel is available to a person who makes a journey from the South to the North but not for journeys made within Northern Ireland. The scheme is also available to people living north of the Border. I would like to see the Department make progress with its counterpart in Whitehall to ensure that the free travel scheme is available to eligible people throughout the island, regardless of the starting point of a journey or the final destination. This small item could help many people to travel widely throughout the island and would not be prohibitively costly.

I am glad the Government has continued to improve child benefit payments. The budget of 2004 provided a worthwhile increase in payment. The increase of €6 in respect of the first and second child and €8 in respect of the third and any subsequent child brings the monthly rate to €131.60 and €165.30, respectively. This is very important. The child benefit scheme benefits an estimated 524,000 families. Those of us who deal with representations on a constant basis are always conscious of the important role played by child benefit in our society. It is a direct payment to families, is efficient and is an effective way of channelling support directly to children. Since 1997, the need to improve the levels of child benefit has been taken seriously. In the 2004 budget an additional €70 million was provided to support increases in child benefit. The importance of child benefit payment is evident when one considers that the Government has more than trebled child benefit since 1997. This is a worthwhile and necessary increase.

I compliment the Government, particularly the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the Minister for Finance, on ensuring that the 2004 budget package for social welfare amounted to €630 million. The level of expenditure on social welfare is now double that of 1997. That the Government has allocated €11.26 billion for the provision of social welfare services in 2004 shows the huge emphasis it places on ensuring that people who need to avail of social welfare services have a decent income. The 2004 Estimate allows for an increase of 7% on what was spent in 2003. The measures the Minister is implementing with this legislation bear testimony to the Government's emphasis.

On a number of occasions in this House I have raised the difficult position in which many of our emigrants find themselves, particularly in Britain and North America. Those of us who come from counties which were devastated by emigration in the past are conscious of the role many of our emigrants played, particularly in sending remittances home to help the family income. Now that we no longer have enforced emigration, the age cohort of our emigrants is very high. There are very few young emigrants in London, Birmingham, Manchester or the big cities of the United States. This means that elderly emigrants do not have the support of younger people who followed in their footsteps. From visiting the Cavan Association in London and speaking with members of the Cavan Association in other towns, particularly in Britain, I know that severe difficulty is felt by emigrants who are living in inadequate housing circumstances and do not have an adequate income.

My local authority is making an effort to rehouse emigrants who wish to come home. However, it would be immature to think that all emigrants who are living in difficult circumstances would want to return to their place of birth. Many of them would not want to return to Ireland. The country has changed greatly and many emigrants no longer have relatives or friends in their home places. Nevertheless, an effort should be made and co-ordinated by the relevant Departments, for example, the Departments of Social and Family Affairs, Foreign Affairs and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to provide housing at home for those who might wish to avail of such a scheme.

People who work on a voluntary basis with county associations, particularly in London, tell me that many emigrants who have fallen on hard times are living very lonely and isolated lives and that their circumstances are very poor. Those of us who keep in touch with county associations abroad did not need the "Prime Time" programme to highlight those facts for us. We were conscious of the problem long before RTE did a programme on it. I would like the Department of Social and Family Affairs to liaise with its counterpart in Britain to ensure that emigrants are provided with the assistance they need and given the opportunity to return home if they so desire. A small cohort of people, in relative terms, are in straitened circumstances and are not living in good housing conditions.

I pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of people who were forced to emigrate in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and so on to find work and after working extremely hard in difficult occupations sent remittances that were badly needed by their families at home. The least we could do as a State that has prospered in recent times is alleviate the suffering of those people in their twilight years and show them they are not forgotten. I would like the Department, in conjunction with its counterparts in the social security department in Britain and working with the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to initiate worthwhile schemes to bring those emigrants home and provide housing for them in their own counties, should they desire to return to Ireland.

People working with the county associations in London have remarked on the dwindling numbers in religious life who provide pastoral care. When the church was extremely strong in personnel, they worked with emigrants and were a constant source of contact and activity for them. Unfortunately their dwindling numbers and fewer people getting involved in voluntary activity is limiting the contact with people who need assistance and advice. Will the Minister for Social and Family Affairs pursue that together with her colleagues in the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Foreign Affairs?

As Deputy Finian McGrath said, the really effective way of minimising poverty in society is to increase employment opportunities. The substantial increases in the rates of social welfare payments particularly for pensioners and for those in receipt of child benefit in the past few years have had very positive results. The Government gave a commitment to increase pension payments to €200 per person per week over the lifetime of the Government and I am very glad that substantial progress has been made in this regard.

The Bill provides for improvements in the carer's allowance, which is very welcome. We can never give enough support to people who are caring for others 24 hours a day, seven days a week all year round. I welcome the fact that the income disregard has been approved and the respite care grant, which is also very important, has been improved.

I previously put forward a suggestion that there should be a midway house between home help and the carer's allowance schemes to cater for people who are not totally incapacitated but are not able to live independently. These people typically would avail of home help, however a family member does not meet the criteria to qualify as a home help, whereas the carer's allowance may be paid to family members. Consideration should be given to a scheme that provides that a family member may stay at home to care for a parent, sibling or child who although not incapacitated is not in a position to care for himself or herself. A family member may be in a position to stay at home during the day if there was a small payment forthcoming from either the health board or the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This would be of particular help to old people who wish to stay in their own home as long as possible.

Members referred to the prohibitive cost of private nursing homes and we need to provide adequate care for people when they are no longer able to care for themselves. I hope the Department fleshes out my idea as such a scheme would help ameliorate the situation.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I join Deputy Brendan Smith and other Members in paying tribute to the staff at the Department of Social and Family Affairs for the very courteous and efficient manner in which they deal with queries from our respective constituency offices. It is important to state that it is very much appreciated and it is a method of dealing with constituency queries that some Departments are beginning to replicate although not always with the same degree of effect. If it were replicated more particularly in dealing with individual queries it might remove the need for many of the parliamentary questions that we are obliged to ask.

I wish to raise the way in which increases in social welfare payments are presented. Generally they are attended with a great deal of cheer-leading on the part of the Government benches and are often represented in the media with graphic headlines, but unfortunately from the perspective of the social welfare recipient, much of that is very misleading. For somebody who benefits from the full amount of the increase, the increase is clawed back in a number of ways, for example, a person in local authority housing may have it clawed back in rent and a person in receipt of rent allowance may have it clawed back in the personal contribution that is required for the rent allowance. Of course, somebody who does not receive the full benefit of the increase, a person on a pro rata contributory payment does not get the full benefit and I would like to draw attention to the degree to which there is growing dissatisfaction among people who are on pro rata pensions and not benefiting from the full amount of the increases. They do, of course, receive a proportionate amount but this has been drawn to my attention by a number of constituents who are considerably aggrieved by the small increases, Will the Minister look at pro rata payments as the recipients are gravely dissatisfied?

Of all the cuts, the change in the rent allowance is one of the most serious. The amount from which rent allowance may be paid has been capped. If a person on rent allowance attempts to rent accommodation where the rent is above the limit that has been arbitrarily set, he or she does not qualify for rent allowance. That is making many people homeless. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, will argue that there are exemptions whereby people who are homeless will continue to qualify for rent allowance, that community welfare officers will have discretion and that an assessed applicant for local authority housing can qualify. The problem is that, to qualify as homeless, one must first become homeless, which is a fate many recipients of rent allowance will now have to face. In many cases an applicant may not be assessed by a local authority for several months after his or her housing need presents. In such circumstances, the person is not eligible for rent allowance.

I have a solution to suggest to the Minister. The Residential Tenancies Bill 2003 has completed Committee Stage and Report Stage is ordered for this House. There is an inconsistency between its provisions and the regulations governing rent allowance. The Residential Tenancies Bill provides for the rent of any dwelling to be set at the market rate. It sets out a procedure whereby a tenant may apply to the residential tenancies board if he or she feels the rent he or she is paying exceeds the market rate. The board will be empowered to set the rent at the market level. Similarly, a landlord could apply to the board if he or she felt the rent was out of line with the market rate. On the other hand, the regulations governing rent allowance do not relate to the market rate. The levels are set at an arbitrary level which is that set by the health boards when the regulations were introduced last year.

It has been argued here that the State paid out huge amounts of money in rent allowance, which is true. Nobody should be surprised that this is the case when the Government has allowed the price of houses to increase and private rents to increase correspondingly while failing to provide enough social housing. In the circumstances, the supplementary payment which is made to people in need of housing who must rent privately has to increase. It is also argued that landlords are hiking up rents to qualify for increased rent allowance. The argument is that the landlord can put the rent to any level in the knowledge that rent allowance will increase in tandem. If this is true, the problem can be addressed by providing community welfare officers with the power to make representations to the residential tenancies board.

Under the new legislation, the residential tenancies board can set a rent at market levels. If a person presents for rent allowance and the community welfare officer is of the view that the rent in question is out of line with the market rate in a particular area, he or she should have the power to apply to the residential tenancies board as a tenant would in similar circumstances to argue that case. The board could then set the market rate on which the rent allowance would be based. This system is preferable to the existing one. I do not know the extent to which the problem of landlords increasing rents to qualify for enhanced rent allowance is real or an excuse, but this system would deal with it. It would provide the health boards' community welfare officers with the same entitlement as private tenants.

It would also be fair to the tenant. I know of cases in which landlords increase rents and, because the tenants can do nothing about it, they face the prospect of losing their rent allowance. The provisions of the Residential Tenancies Bill and the regulations governing rent allowance must be reconciled. I ask the Minister to examine the provisions of that Bill to bring rent allowance provisions into line with them. That would resolve the problem from the point of view of the unfortunate tenants who are caught in these circumstances and from the point of view of the reasonable requirement on the State to protect the public purse from being ripped off by landlords who consider rent allowance a soft touch.

I thank Deputy Gilmore for sharing his time. At the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service, which concluded its work on the Finance Bill 2004 today, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, extended until 2006 a range of property-based tax reliefs. These reliefs are primarily of benefit to property speculators, developers and landlords. By his own admission in reply to a series of Dáil questions from me last week, the Minister for Finance, his Department and the Revenue Commissioners have no estimate of the cost of these reliefs. These gifts, as I can only describe them, are to be given by Government at an unknown cost to the developers of multi-storey car parks, private hospitals, sports injuries clinics, hotels and holiday cottages among others.

The same Government, through the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, is imposing miserly and dangerous restrictions in the rent allowance scheme. I will return to the rent allowance scheme before concluding. This is the sort of warped thinking which dominates the Government. It is the context in which the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004, which implements the inadequate social welfare increases announced in the budget, proceeds. Despite this, we see an extension of measures which seek only to look after the very well-off in our society.

In the course of this debate, several Government speakers have defended their broken promises on child benefit by pointing at Fine Gael and Labour and reminding all and sundry that the current increases are better than those made under the rainbow coalition Administration. While that may well be so, it should not be forgotten that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have been in power during almost seven years of unprecedented economic growth. They have had resources which were not available to previous Governments of any party or combination of parties.

I listened to some of the contributions in recent days and heard a Deputy on the Government side say that we have the best welfare system in the world. The factual position is that the State has some of the lowest social expenditure in Europe while it is more unequal than any other in the developed world with the exception of the USA. If this is the best welfare system in the world, the Deputy should try living in it. While I look forward to the electorate depriving many Fianna Fáil Members of their jobs in the next election, I hope for their own sakes that they will not be forced to test their colleague's theses as presented in the House last night.

I am beginning to think the Government has set itself the mission of proving that the arguments of those of us who opposed the ratification of the Nice treaty on both occasions were correct. We have already seen how the issue of the creation of a two-tier Europe — a notion mocked by supporters of the Nice treaty when Sinn Féin advanced it during the referendum campaigns — has come to the forefront of discussions on the future of Europe. The Minister is prepared to discriminate against the rights of workers from new member states. We argued that the Nice treaty represented a poor deal for candidate countries while respecting their sovereign rights to take the decisions they did. It is a pity the EU did not have a similar policy of respecting the sovereign rights of member states in terms of our vote on the treaty.

As my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, pointed out last night, the unclear nature of the Government's proposals to restrict access to social welfare benefits by workers from the new states makes it difficult to assess whether it will be in breach of the EU's rules on non-discrimination on the ground of nationality. The quid pro quo in the EU Single Market is freedom of movement for capital in exchange for freedom of movement for labour. States allow full latitude for multinational corporations to export their profits and avoid tax, an issue we address here from time to time. However, we have one of the lowest corporation tax rate regimes in the world. In comparison the benefits for working people are modest by any standards. They should be entitled, without discrimination, to State support when either out of work through illness, incapacity or redundancy. It is essential for all elected representatives to set their face against scaremongering and false claims about people flooding here to make claims against our social welfare code. That will not happen. Such scare tactics have been used in the past in a disgraceful way. All elected representatives must ensure that is completely ruled out at all times and especially in the lead up to and during the forthcoming local elections. It should have no place in the political engagement in the State. We should unite to reject such claims.

I note section 81E gives responsibility for dealing with cases of alleged discrimination or resolving disputes arising out of the changes, to the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations. While I do not have a problem with this in principle, it is safe to say this will mean an increased workload on that office. This will be particularly noticeable in the immediate aftermath of the implementation of this legislation when people try to come to terms with the changes and get used to the practical or impractical effect they will have on their daily life conditions. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether the Government has plans to provide X amount of resources to the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations because that may be necessary to deal with the increased workload.

I referred at the outset to the rent allowance. Recently I had a case presented to me of a young single woman who had been in receipt of rent allowance and subsequently gained remunerative employment, following which the rent allowance was withdrawn. Since her employment has been reduced to ten hours per week, she is no longer able to afford her weekly rent. On her recent visit to the local community welfare officer she was advised that she could not be considered now, and for some time to come, for rent allowance. That is the invidious position in which that young woman is in today. This is just one of the real situations we cautioned against in the earlier stages of addressing the measures introduced by the Minister prior to the budget. We have another opportunity here to point them up but we do so in a more informed way. Rather than speculating on what might be the case, we are able to cite real instances of hardship being created.

I appeal to the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, to address this matter to his colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan. There are many in the same position as the young woman I have described. I will be happy to furnish all the details of her case. It is unacceptable that a young woman who had endeavoured to improve her circumstances, through paid employment, and through no fault of hers — as the employer had to reduce her employment to ten hours per week — is in a position where she cannot cater for her weekly living costs. What are the prospects for this young woman following the measures introduced by the Minister at the end of last year? There is no point in saying in the town of Monaghan that she should go to a cheaper abode. The cost of housing is expensive in many provincial towns, and certainly in Monaghan and other towns with which I am familiar.

I appeal to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, whom I welcome into the House, to affirm her interest and willingness to look at this case and to recognise that the measure she has introduced for the rent allowance scheme needs to be addressed. The only way it can be addressed is to reverse the instruction, already issued, and allow for fair and reasonable administration of the scheme. I believe the community welfare officers find it difficult to administer these directives. They are human beings of a caring nature and find it extremely hard to turn down a deserving case. I will furnish the details of that case to the Minister. Will she confirm that she will look at it sympathetically and also at the wider issue of the outworking of her measures?

Once again we visit the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Like many other speakers I have the utmost respect for the Minister who is a compassionate and caring person——

——but she is being codded by some of her Cabinet colleagues. It is only because she is a nice person that this is being done to her and it is not fair.

I did not realise I was so vulnerable.

The point raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin is correct. Instructions are being given to community welfare officers to enforce cuts which the Minister never wanted or intended. Somebody somewhere inside that amorphous mass called Government decided it should happen. The following is a classic example. Where a person gets an increase in social welfare benefit or assistance while living in a house for which the person receives a rent supplement, as soon as the increase in the social welfare benefit or allowance takes place, there is a reduction in the rent allowance. That is in breach of the law. It may well be departmental policy but once a specific figure is arrived at, in respect of which an individual is entitled to benefit or assistance, an erosion of that on the basis of some other criteria is illegal. I have had this argument with the Department of Social and Family Affairs on many occasions. The local authorities try to do the same in the area of differential rents. Where a social welfare payment is increased, automatically there is a rent increase on the basis of an increased income. The two are separate. One is supposed to be an increase which takes into account the basic minimum payment to a person in receipt of assistance. Any interference with that is in breach of the law. The differential rent is an attempt by the local authority or the health board to get a subsidy for themselves out of the system, which is wrong. The Minister will say this is not happening but it is happening on a regular basis.

When fools like me tell constituents their rights and they go to see their community welfare officers, some of those officers tell them they should not go near politicians, that they are only looking for votes, that they are not their friends and that the officers themselves can deal with the matter. I do not mind them playing a little politics. They have every right to do so, provided they run for election under the same guise. Far be it from me to suggest they would have any other motive. However, if I get another similar complaint from a constituent, I will deal with it in a way that those concerned will remember for a long time. While I do not want to have to do that, I give fair warning that I will deal with the next complaint of that nature I receive from a constituent, and there are ways to do that here.

This is not a personal matter. I accept the Minister is a caring and compassionate person. However, she is surrounded by bushwhackers who are waiting in the bushes for her all the time.

I will need my machete.

The Minister must take action because nothing is as bad as a nice Minister for Social and Family Affairs who is seen as an easy target by the many vultures around the Cabinet table. You know this, a Cheann Comhairle, having been there, done that and worn the T-shirt.

Another area of concern arising from the budget is in regard to the 4 cent per day child benefit increase. I am not attempting to trivialise the issue but am simply drawing attention to a disappointing increase. I am not blaming the Minister. It is generally accepted that child benefit is a method by which income can be directed to the benefit of families in a carefully managed way so that mothers can pay for child minding, crèche facilities and other facilities. The need for such facilities has never been greater.

The Minister will probably attempt improvements in this area next year but I ask her to give it serious consideration before then. She should not let others cod her, side-track her or push her into a cul de sac. The Minister must deal with such people. She is feisty and can well deal with these people when she wants. I am simply giving her some friendly advice.

Some of Deputy Durkan's descriptions are inappropriate to parliamentary debate.

What is wrong with what I said?

The Deputy referred to "bushwhackers". I am talking about the general tone of your contribution.

The term "bushwhackers" has been used in Parliaments all over the world. I would call such people dry-gulchers, bushwhackers and a number of other things. The term "bushwhacker" is an Americanisation meaning sniper, but I do not want to use that phraseology and I think dry-gulcher or bushwhacker is more appropriate.

The reference to feistiness was a compliment and was meant as such. The Minister took it as a compliment, which is even better. I am sure you, a Cheann Comhairle, took it as a compliment also.

The problem is that when a Deputy pays such compliments to a Member on the opposite side of the House, it is just as easy to go the other way. The Chair would prefer if the Deputy did not get involved.

A Cheann Comhairle, you have been in the House a fair number of years and I have kept an eye on you for many of them. I seldom go the other way, as you know. While I accept that some of my compliments might have been back-handed, they were never malicious.

The Minister must seriously consider the issues. I make a genuine case in the context of personal knowledge of real cases, similar to that of many Members who spoke from the heart in this debate. I singled out areas of special concern to me because I deal with them regularly, and will deal with them again in coming days. The Bill does nothing to address the issues I raised, despite the budget having been deemed a windfall for social welfare recipients, which is far from the case.

I worry about myself because some Members say I have no compassion and, because I am a woman, I should have — others believe I am a woman of compassion but easily manipulated by my colleagues. While I sometimes wonder where I stand on these issues, given my 17 years of experience in this House, I will stand on my own two feet, make decisions accordingly and take what consequences come my way in due course.

I thank all Members who participated in the debate. Many raised concerns with topical issues appertaining to proposed changes within the social welfare code, to which I will first allude. I indicated that I am considering restrictions within the social welfare code which will be no less robust than those applying in the United Kingdom. However, I re-emphasise the welcome which people from accession countries will have to participate in the Irish labour force.

It is important to record that, as the regulations stand, those who are inactive, such as pensioners and students, from all EU countries, including accession countries, are more than welcome to reside in this country as long as they are not a burden on the State. It is only on the basis of the common travel arrangements with the United Kingdom that we have found ourselves in a position where we could be seen as an attractive part of the world to travel to, given that we have a very strong economy and, most particularly, because some say our social welfare system will entice people to come here because the system is so good. At the same time, I am criticised in regard to the social welfare system. I must accept that is the reality of politics.

That is right, it is the reality.

That is life.

On one hand it is one way and, on the other, another. I will shortly introduce measures to safeguard our social welfare system. As Members will appreciate, it is proposed, given the length of the Bill, that we take Committee Stage on Tuesday next. However, I must get the agreement of Cabinet before I make available the amendments. Many Members expressed concerns to the effect that they would prefer to receive the amendments tomorrow, Friday, but I will not be in a position to provide them because they will not have been cleared by Cabinet. We propose to take Committee Stage on Tuesday next. I have asked that the Chair consider taking the Bill on Friday, 5 March also, to allow Members time to evaluate the proposals. I and my officials will facilitate this in regard to the amendments as agreed.

The Minister would not publish the amendments on Tuesday next and expect us to discuss them on the same day.

I will publish them on Tuesday.

Will the Minister expect us to discuss them on Tuesday?

I hope we will continue Committee Stage on Friday, which would give Members time to consider the amendments. Otherwise, I will have to introduce them on Report Stage, which I would prefer not to do. I do not expect the Whip opposite to jump up and down while saying I am in any way circumventing due process.

With regard to the Bill, some Members were concerned with the qualification conditions for pensions. I reiterate that we are currently reviewing the qualification conditions for contributory old age pensions to ascertain whether changes can be made to the system. The possibility of replacing the current system, which is based on yearly averages, with one based on total contributions paid or credited is being examined by the Department.

The Minister should be careful in that regard. There are many trap-doors around that issue.

That is so. I hope to have the report in a few months but, as the Deputy knows, in regard to making changes to a major area such as contributions, in trying to solve one problem one could create another. Therefore, this will take some time to evaluate and to find the best possible way to progress.

Many speakers mentioned carers and we all agree that the support given by carers is second to none. We have had a number of discussions on carers within our committee and we intend to deliver on the programme for Government. We have almost completed our work on the disregard for carers, we have increased the personal rates for the carer's allowance and benefit and we have increased the respite care grant. Everyone would agree that, in a short time, we have changed the ethos of caring and 24,300 carers will benefit this year. I am aware of the work of the committee and in April I will forward a comment card and literature to all interested parties in the non-governmental organisation system and Oireachtas Members seeking their views on the implications for future funding of long-term care. This issue will come to the fore in the future and we will have to make difficult decisions about how we will pay for it. We will continue our reform of the carer's allowance and benefit to address the concerns expressed by Opposition speakers.

The House agrees that child benefit is one method of dealing in a universal way with child care and child poverty in particular. We have delivered a considerable amount of investment in child benefit. It is not that long ago, 1997, that child benefit was €38.09 for the first and second child.

The cost of living was lower too.

It was €49.52 for third and subsequent children. It is €131.60 and €165 respectively as of April.

What about the 2001 promise?

Members should listen. A sum of €1.775 billion is involved this year, which is a huge investment in children.

That is history.

Allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Completion of this strategy will cost an additional €235 million in a full year and I intend to continue with investment in child benefit. We have reached 89% of our commitment and we will continue to deliver on the commitment to child benefit.

The Minister sounds like the Taoiseach.

The child dependant allowance, CDA, issue is raised ad infinitum and we will have to come to some agreement on how we will deal with it. Although Members opposite may not agree, CDAs are in themselves a disincentive to people to move out of welfare dependency and into work. We are evaluating the implications under Sustaining Progress of addressing the family income supplement and CDAs. An OECD report I launched last year indicated that the use of CDAs had been ineffective and needed to be dealt with. As a policy issue we will continue the evaluation of its effectiveness within the social welfare code and we hope to be in a position to look at the interaction of the entirety of family income support in a short period.

The back to education scheme was referred to by several speakers and my flippant way was chosen by members of the media to indicate one of the reasons for changes in that scheme. We should examine the reasons the scheme was commenced along with investment in education at that time. What kind of investment existed at that time in future and additional support structures for people to remain in school and to progress to university? Things have changed considerably since the introduction of the scheme in 1990, when 67 people participated in it. In the academic year 2002-03 6,473 participated in the scheme. This year so far there has been an increase in numbers, with 7,498 people participating.

That is good.

It is great. I have no problem with it.

It is great for the country. Those people will not be on social welfare in the future.

Allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

The scheme is targeted and looks at many of the fundamental issues which arise in this area, such as illiteracy, continuing in education and self-esteem. Foundation courses have been put together by my Department and the Department of Education and Science, as Members will be aware, in Outreach and the institutes of technology and they have been tremendous. Those in the programme at second level will not be affected and those in the programme at third level will be affected to the extent that there will be universality in the way the schemes are run.

The supplementary welfare allowance was referred to and it is an easy target. Deputy Lynch made accusations against me in the House which are the natural modus operandi of the Labour Party when addressing issues of concern. That party has been aware of these issues for the past 20 years but is not prepared to do anything about them. It is easy for an Opposition Member to point at me and say that, because of me, people are homeless. That is untrue. We changed the rent cap here last year and not one person was made homeless as a consequence. What happened instead was that rents were reduced. People needed the opportunity of an increased threshold and we facilitated that through community welfare officers and through my Department. We cannot continue to have vulnerable people being dealt with in a long-term context when they should be dealt with in an emergency context. I agree that housing is an issue for us all, especially members of local authorities, but there is no way we can continue to be a soft option and not allow vulnerable people the opportunity to have their long-term housing needs dealt with. Members know that many people examined for housing are described as adequately dealt with because they are renting, and as a result they may be passed over in the housing lists. That is not fair.

I set up four pilot projects but it is interesting to see the lack of joined-up government at local level when it comes to this issue. My Department, community welfare officers, EHOs and housing officers are all involved so I decided there would have to be changes. On that basis we will produce an action plan on housing to address the concerns being raised.

I will support the plan, provided it is worth supporting.

I will welcome the support of all Members for its implementation, especially in county councils. Local authorities may not be enamoured with what I have to say. However, this is unfair. A huge investment of €370 million is provided for rent supplement. If county councils had that money, what could they do to address the social housing problem?

I reiterate my concerns because people are being misinformed and that is unfair. People on a housing list are entitled to supplementary welfare regardless of the six month rule. People categorised under any of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government legislation on homelessness are entitled to supplementary welfare. Those over 65, people on disability allowance, people on invalidity pension, people who have been tenants for the past six months——

It could take up to two years to categorise some of them.

We will have a protocol from the housing action plan to deal with those issues. It will be a short-term measure to ensure that people's applications for housing will be evaluated in time to determine their eligibility.

It is not true that the diet supplement has been done away with. The methodology of examining one's eligibility——

It is gone.

Nobody has been removed from diet supplement.

It was taken away from those who needed it.

Allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

I challenge the Deputy to name one person who has been cut off. Not one person has been cut off.

The people who need this will not get it.

The money advice and budgeting service, MABS, is a fabulous service for people. It does not involve money. It is an advisory service where people are facilitated with their debts and concerns. This tremendous service is available throughout the country and, this year, I provided additional funding for it. We have changed the role of MABS, providing support and networking to those who need it. I have met people who were in difficulties before using MABS. Just by getting organised and being supported, they were able to deal with their issues. The protocols between MABS and particularly the ESB and others have been beneficial to people. The continuation of the MABS service and support for it will be of tremendous benefit.

We have invested considerably in social welfare and we have developed and expanded good programmes which will continue to be added to. More than €11 billion, the largest amount of money for any Department other than the Department of Finance, is being provided for the people who are less well off. It is mine and everyone else's duty to ensure we continue that. A social welfare package of more that €630 million this year is a clear indication of the Government's support for the less well off and I dare the Opposition to do better the next time.

The Minister broke her promise on child benefit.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 49.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Browne, John.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Glennon, Jim.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Ned.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sexton, Mae.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilkinson, Ollie.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Breen, James.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Paudge.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Harkin, Marian.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Murphy, Gerard.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Browne and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share