I wish to share time with Deputies Seymour Crawford and Michael Ring.
Social Welfare Bill 2007: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
On a point of order, we do not have a schedule for taking the various Stages of the Bill. How does the Ceann Comhairle intend to proceed with this?
Second Stage will be completed at 5 p.m. and then we will move to the next Stage.
Those details have not been circulated.
The House would have had to deal with that on the Order of Business. We will proceed with the Second Stage debate.
When I spoke last evening I referred to the need for the Minister to have regard to how the rent support system operates. Some young vulnerable couples have to supplement their rent almost to the extent of 50% of their disposable income which is generated by social welfare payments. This has been brought to the Minister's attention before but the time has come to do something about it, particularly as rents in my area, and presumably elsewhere too, have increased by up to €300 per month in the past four or five months. No attention has been given to this just as the allowances on the medical cards are stuck.
Those who provide care for their loved ones over a long time need to be considered. In my constituency a lady cared for her daughter for 24 years until her daughter's death. That woman devoted her life to providing a service that the State would otherwise have had to provide, at great personal sacrifice but because she has not made social welfare contributions she does not receive a pension. Sadly, that situation is replicated many times around the country. Will the Minister examine the possibility of allowing credits as contributions to qualify a person who cares for a relative, or anybody else, for a social welfare pension? There is provision for the person who leaves insurable employment to do that and return to it later. There is nothing for the person who has not contributed. This requires urgent attention.
We boast of being one of the richest nations in the world. We should consider the requirements for the contributory old age pension. People often do not have contributions of the required status to qualify for the pension. They might have J1 contributions or others that qualify them for payment as widows and orphans. This causes great hardship. It also applies to the invalidity pension which is based on contributions. A young person who suffers a stroke but does not have the relevant contributions has no means of making them without returning to work. Will the Minister ascertain the extent to which the thresholds can be moved to bring extra people into the net? These people have done no wrong but have contributed to society and deserve to be treated well by one of the richest countries in the world.
I welcome many positive changes in the Social Welfare Bill, especially the qualified adult allowance for pensioners. For years I have lobbied for this change because many women were forced by law to give up their jobs in the public service at the time of their marriage. I am sure many young couples find it hard to believe that such a law existed. The women's removal from work also removed their right to pay contributions so when they reached pension age they could not receive a contributory pension in their own right, or even a non-contributory pension because of their husband's means or occupational pension. It is vital that this increased allowance, which hopefully by this time next year will be the equivalent of a non-contributory pension, would be paid directly to the spouse in his or her right. There is no reason it should have to go through the husband or wife. I also welcome the extension of the fuel allowance by one week but the Government was out of touch with the cost of fuel when it refused to increase the allowance above €18 per week.
The single biggest anomaly in this budget, as in the past eight, is the failure to increase the living alone allowance. It is clear from a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs yesterday that this is not an issue for groups such as CORI and Combat Poverty. In a rural constituency, however, such as Cavan-Monaghan, where there is little public transport, few buses and no trains, to allow pensioners to use their free travel passes, the cost of living alone is a serious problem leading to depression and unfortunately in some cases suicide. This issue can no longer be ignored and must be addressed.
Imagine the case of my friend who lost her spouse and suddenly found herself with a household income of one pension instead of two. Does the Minister not realise that she must still heat the house, pay the same tax and insurance on the car and use the same cooker to prepare food? The only difference is a little less food is needed, yet she goes from receiving approximately €400 back to €200, although, of course, she is entitled to the €7.50 living alone allowance. It would be a joke if it was not so serious.
Another issue that has improved quite significantly over the past 15 years is carer's allowance and I have been involved in discussions on this matter in the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs for many years. As the Minister has already stated, carers play a critical role in looking after not only the elderly, but also people with disabilities and others with serious illnesses. However, there are major anomalies and I believe that the spouse's income should be ignored in this matter. I am dealing with one such anomaly at the moment, which saw a lady give up her part-time job in Northern Ireland to look after her friend, who was not a relation, and so far she has been refused any support. Can the Minister imagine what it would cost the State to mind this seriously ill person if this lady had not given up her job?
The issue of means testing for the carer's allowance must be seriously examined. I believe when people are seriously ill, and doctors can verify this, families should not be put through the trauma and delays of means tests. While I am on the subject of means tests, I urge the Minister to stop bringing people back for them, where possible. Older people who are refused the right to a stamp because of their age dread being brought back for a means test.
Farm incomes have dropped, many farmers have gone out of business and fewer people — only 7,500 — are receiving farm assist payments than ten years ago when the scheme was introduced. I know several of these people are under extraordinary pressure as payments have fallen from €200 and more to under €100 and as low as €50. There is no justifiable reason for it.
Another anomaly is that a self-employed person can only earn €30 per week while a person on PAYE can earn €200 per week and still get the maximum non-contributory pension. This is ridiculous and is an example of how the self-employed are being discriminated against.
When the budget was announced last week, the choir on the Government benches clapped because they thought it was a great budget for people on social welfare but it was not. Stealth taxes have begun and next week local authorities will send a letter to people on social welfare to have them reassessed for their council houses. This will see more money taken from increases in social welfare.
The family income supplement, FIS, is a scheme for people whose salaries do not match what they would receive through social welfare. Do employees at the Department of Social and Family Affairs make phone calls anymore? Could the Minister of State call some of these agencies to see why they no longer answer calls from the public? I know people who have been waiting up to six months for their FIS applications to be processed. It can take 16 to 18 weeks to have it renewed and I ask the Minister of State to have her officials call the Department to see if they get through. I think Mr. and Mrs. Voicemail will answer and no more will be heard from the Department. I want this investigated immediately because people on low incomes should not have to wait 16 to 18 weeks for FIS to be renewed and six or seven months to have a case processed. The Department staff are receiving benchmarking in their salaries and people on low incomes should not be forced to wait so long for FIS.
People wait months for appeals relating to carer's allowance and I have raised this matter with the Department on several occasions. People apply for carer's allowance because they are looking after a loved one in need of full-time care. When there is an appeal relating to the carer's allowance, the carer is supposed to bring the loved one with them, but nine times out of ten this is not possible because he or she is too sick. The appeals officer should visit the home of the person seeking carer's allowance because it is not being assessed with regard to the carer but the person in need of care. I have raised this matter in the committee over the years and I want the Department to examine it. There is no point wasting taxpayers' money bringing in appeals officers who receive travel expenses while also bringing in the carer. The problem is that, nine times out of ten, the decision is that the individual does not need full-time care. How can the appeals officer make a decision when he does not know the circumstances of the individual involved? The appeals officer should visit the home of the sick person. I have raised this point before and will continue to do so until the matter is addressed.
Last night, I raised the issue of public transport and now I wish to address free schemes. Older people in rural areas receive the free travel pass but it is of no use to them because there is no public transport. People should be given vouchers for taxis because that is the way of the future.
The Health Service Executive, HSE, will not take sick and old people to hospital appointments so they must now get up at 5 a.m. to take a bus at 7 a.m. They then must wait all day to be taken home again. This is a scandal at a time when so much money is available to the Government.
I wanted to address various social welfare anomalies regarding widows and others but have no more time.
I wish to share time with Deputy Michael Kennedy.
I commend the Minister on securing a social welfare budget of almost €17 billion for 2008 and on receiving almost half of the extra €1.7 billion that has been made available since the publication of the pre-budget Estimates. Overall, 31% of the country's gross current expenditure in 2008 will be accounted for by social welfare spending and this is a measure of the level of priority we attach to the area.
There is an excellent social welfare system in Ireland today that guarantees a minimum level of income and a basic standard of living for every citizen in the State. I am speaking from personal experience as, when I was only eight years old, my father was told he could never work again. He and my mother managed to raise five children on social welfare income and gave us the same opportunities afforded to other children.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the staff of the social welfare system who provide an outstanding service to public representatives and the public. There are fine information services available to the public, in particular the outstanding website, information leaflets, telephone lines and citizens advice centres around the country. I often find that our task is to communicate with people regarding their social welfare entitlements because many members of the public do not know their full entitlements and need information to let them apply and benefit from schemes. In this regard, I welcome the extra allocation of €1.8 million in the 2008 budget to the citizens information board. This will allow for the enhanced availability of resources and information services in the year ahead.
We have a duty to ensure a decent quality of life for elderly citizens. I acknowledge the presence in the House of the Minister of State with responsibility for older persons, Deputy Hoctor. I welcome the increase in the contributory and non-contributory State pension to €223.30 and €212 per week, respectively. Elderly people made enormous sacrifices in more difficult economic circumstances. Many worked abroad for long periods and have returned home for their retirement. It is important that we provide them with a level of income that allows them to live out their days in dignity and with a degree of self-respect.
I welcome the progress made towards the commitment to a State pension of €300, at a minimum, by 2012. I also acknowledge the improvements in recent years in the household benefits package, electricity, fuel and telephone allowances and the provision of free television licences. These measures take some pressure off older people. It is interesting to note the recently published findings of the EU survey on income and living conditions, which confirm that the risk of poverty rate for older people has fallen from just under 30% in 2003 to 13.6% in 2006. While it might seem cold and impersonal to speak in statistical terms about poverty, it is important to benchmark the progress being made. It is necessary to have an independent analysis of our efforts to address poverty among older people.
The Bill is to be welcomed for providing an increase of €27 per week in the qualified adult rate, which brings the payment to such persons to €200 per week. This represents 94% of the target figure, which will be achieved in full next year. I have argued at meetings of the parliamentary party and in other fora that the corollary of a policy of individualisation in the tax code is that one must also implement individualisation in the pension system and afford all adults full independent pension provision in their own right. I welcome the huge progress made in recent years in this regard.
We all have an obligation to engage in the pensions debate. I welcome the publication last October of the Green Paper on pensions. It addresses the challenges we face in this area and puts forward various options to tackle them. I encourage everyone to make a submission on the Green Paper so the decisions made on pensions policy are broadly based and take full account of the views of those directly affected. It is essential that we work to reduce the numbers relying solely on social welfare income in retirement.
Previous speakers referred to carers. I welcome the progress in adequately recognising and rewarding the work of thousands of carers throughout the State. Through sacrifice and dedication, such people ensure their loved ones can remain in their own homes and, in so doing, they save the State millions of euro every year in nursing home charges and other supports. Their role must be supported in every way possible. The initiative introduced last September to allow applicants claim up to half the carer's allowance while retaining their primary social welfare income was a significant step forward. Many thousands of people have applied to avail of this benefit in recent months.
The weekly income disregard for carers is increased in the Bill by €12.50 per week, or €25 for a couple, to €665. It is important to make the public aware that a couple can now earn more than €34,500 per annum and still qualify for the carer's allowance under the means test. Several people have told me they were sure they would not qualify for the allowance. In many cases, however, their income is such that it meets the qualification criteria. We must continue to highlight the improvements in the income thresholds and disregards. One of the key Government commitments in the national partnership agreement, Towards 2016, is the development of a national carers' strategy. I welcome the progress in this regard and look forward to its expected completion next summer.
I also welcome the greater emphasis being placed by the Department on encouraging and facilitating people to move away from dependence on welfare towards participation in the workforce. The Minister's announcement of a revamped family support programme with a budget of €6.5 million in 2008 is a significant initiative. This will provide funding for projects run by third parties to assist welfare recipients and family members to enhance their employability through education, training and personal development. The Minister has also provided for the deployment of an additional 30 facilitators with clerical support staff to further the work in this area. These programmes will complement the schemes already in place, including the back to education and back to work allowances. There is a role for everybody in the workforce. People of working age who are physically capable of work should be required to make some practical contribution to their local community. This will afford immense benefits for themselves in terms of self-esteem and will also benefit their communities.
I welcome the improvements in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, which is to increase by €20 per child, from €180 to €200 for children aged between two and 11 years and from €285 to €305 for children aged between 12 and 22 years. I am particularly pleased that the Bill provides for an increase of €2,000 in the widowed parent grant to €6,000.
I ask the Minister to move ahead with plans to provide a local social welfare office in Carrigaline, County Cork. I understand the OPW is considering possible sites for the office. It is important that services are provided locally to serve Carrigaline and the lower harbour area, particularly since the social welfare office in Passage West closed earlier this year.
I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for sharing time. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and to outline the changes to our social welfare system. I was proud last Wednesday to sit on this side of the House as the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, and Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, spoke about the contents of the Bill. I applaud the Ministers for their efforts to cater for the vulnerable in society. I am always reassured by the Government's commitment to insulate weaker members of society from the financial difficulties they face.
I have memories of other budgets, under other Governments, where benefits to social welfare recipients were less than generous and often unsatisfactory. Since Fianna Fáil entered Government in 1997, it has introduced significant changes and benefits for those who need them most. Throughout the recent period of unprecedented growth in the economy, social welfare payments and the associated thresholds and entitlements have increased on an annual basis. I cannot claim that this will always be the case. We live in a global economy and that will dictate our future growth. In the current economic circumstances, the substantial rate of increase of recent years had to slow down. That has been recognised in the budget.
Nevertheless, the allocation of €17 billion to the social welfare system illustrates the Government's commitment to protecting the underprivileged, poor and vulnerable in our society. This amount represents almost half of the Government's total spend and includes an increase of €980 million over the allocation for this year. That is very significant in any language.
Despite the economic slowdown, the Government remains strong on social welfare issues. As the Minister stated in his speech yesterday, the Government is faced with the challenge of providing adequate resources to address social welfare needs while protecting the economy. While taking that into account, this Bill puts a clear emphasis on protecting the living standards of those most in need. The increases provided in the Bill are well above the estimated inflation rate of 4.9% and these are especially important in maintaining the living standards of disadvantaged people.
The Bill focuses much of the €17 billion allocated on protecting the elderly and citizens on the periphery of the social welfare system, such as those relying on the entitlements of a spouse or partner. The 2,500 job seekers in my constituency will more than welcome the €12 per week increase, as will those 156 recipients of the one-parent family benefit in the Dublin North region. We have some 529 recipients of family income support, who will receive a €25 increase, which will be very welcome.
I strongly support all aspects of the Social Welfare Bill and welcome the €14 increase in the contributory State pension, as well as increases in the contributory widow's and widower's pension, the deserted wife's benefits and invalidity pensions. Bringing the amount to €223.30 per week is very significant and in line with the Government's commitment of reaching a target of €300 per week in its lifetime. There was a €12 increase in the non-contributory State pension, bringing it to €212 per week. I have had many calls to my office in recent days by people welcoming that.
The qualified adult allowance for spouses and partners of those depending on social welfare payments means couples in this category will have a combined increase of €41 per week, which is just and welcome. The income support payments will increase by €8 for those dependent on adults in receipt of job seeker's benefit. The Government has increased the payment for family income supports and enabled more families to claim the payment. I welcome that the widowed parent grant has increased to €6,000.
I cannot go on without mentioning the fuel allowance period, which will be increased to 30 weeks from next April. This is important and I hope in future years the Minister will be in a position, taking financial constraints into consideration, to increase that period. Quite often our weather seems warmer in spring and is colder in the summer. We should look to increase the fuel allowance period as a result.
I welcome the Government's commitment to carers and I have no doubt that we recognise the important role carers play in our society. Since 1997 there has been a sharp increase in the payment to carers and this year the increase was €14, bringing it to €200. That is justified but we should continue to improve on it.
The Government has a stated commitment to establish a national carers strategy, which was provided in Towards 2016, to ensure there is no monetary barrier to a person leaving a job to care for a loved one. I welcome this and exhort the Minister to bring this about as soon as possible.
I would like to see further increases in payments to qualifying adults, which would substantially ease the burden of stay-at-home mothers, spouses and partners who do not work and those who cannot work. We must ensure the higher benefits do not adversely affect other payments, grants or supplements paid to a social welfare recipient. I have indicated to the Minister that the last thing we want is to see an increase in payments tipping the balance on a young mother, for example, on rent supplement and putting her out of the scope of benefits. We must ensure any benefits we give are real in that context.
The Government has not walked blindly into this but has identified several strategic objectives it hopes to achieve. The 2008 budget and the Social Welfare Bill will go a long way to achieving these aims. It is placing €17 billion into achieving these strategic objectives. We must see a continuation of the Government's target on pensions and a significant improvement in the position of spouses and partners, those receiving contributory pensions, and those receiving a qualified allowance.
We must be allowed to strengthen the support to carers, as this Bill provides for, to ensure people continue with this valuable and compassionate work. I cannot over-emphasise the role carers play, a fact recognised on all sides of the House. Most importantly, we must ensure the real value of payments is maintained and safeguarded, with no payment having a negative effect on any other benefit given by other authorities or bodies.
I wish to share time with Deputies Tom Hayes, Terence Flanagan and McHugh.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
My first point concerns the method by which the non-contributory pension is calculated and how the means test to assess that pension is operated. An example concerns a pensioner whose assets amounted to approximately €70,000. In calculating this person's disposable income of €6,240 from the savings amount, the Department equated this to an annual rate of return of 8.825%. However, the top deposit rate available in this country currently is between 4.5% and 5%, and this would involve both a time commitment and minimum amount.
I have checked the websites of various financial institutions and lenders and the best rates I have seen are between 4.5% and 5%, a long way off 8.8%. How is the calculation made? In contrasting the disposable income percentage from the Department and the market reality of deposit amount percentages, the two are miles apart. There must be a reason for this. Will the Minister of State explain how often these means test formulae are reviewed and updated, as any means test should surely relate to the market reality?
There is a policy in the Department of a six-month maximum backdating period for pensions, unless there is proof of extremely exceptional circumstances. For example, an individual applied for a non-contributory pension not knowing he was actually entitled to a contributory pension. He was over the income limit for the non-contributory old-age pension but no official advised him to apply for the contributory old-age pension.
After this man died his wife realised she was entitled to a widow's contributory pension and this was applied for when the exceptional circumstances involving her husband's case were outlined. The person in question was only given a payment of six months backdating, as is general policy within the Department.
It is time to review this policy and consider backdating everyday State pensions beyond the current limit of six months. If serious consideration is being given to a mandatory pension regime, we can in the interim consider extending the backdating of payments for pensions that people have earned a right to.
There is a lack of information on pensions and entitlements. I distributed a booklet to every house in the city and county of Waterford last year and after doing so it quickly became readily apparent that people, particularly those over 50, did not have basic information on pensions and entitlements. For example, people around the age of 55 did not know one has to make contributions, in particular if the person is self-employed, before the age of 55 with regard to a contributory pension. They were simply oblivious to that fact. Approximately three years ago the Department issued a booklet to every house in the country. The Government should start doing that on a yearly basis because people are not informed, particularly those in that age bracket, as to their entitlements.
My next point relates to pensions of the self-employed. Self-employed people were first invited to make social insurance contributions in 1988. In 1999, the Department introduced a half-rate pension for those people who had contributed for between five and ten years. However, this was not done on a pro rata basis so that someone with nine years’ contributions was paid the same as someone with five years’ contributions. The Government needs to deal with the issue on a pro rata basis so that a person with, for example, nine years’ contributions would get the proportional benefit of that and not a pension that only reflects five of those nine years.
My final point is a local issue, but it has some national significance. I refer to the closure of the community welfare office in Dungarvan on the grounds of health and safety. It is ironic that an office run by the HSE would be closed down on the grounds of health and safety, but that is what happened. The conditions in the office have been described as Dickensian for many years by myself and others. I have numerous parliamentary questions and letters on the matter dating back to 2001, when my father was a Deputy. For example, I have a letter from 2002 from the regional manager of the South Eastern Health Board — a man who is still in charge of the area. His letter states: "Proposals to upgrade the facilities in Dungarvan are at an advanced stage." I even met this individual last year and tried to facilitate him with office space in the town. The issue goes on and on. I even raised the matter in the Committee of Public Accounts a few years ago and was given similar empty assurances.
The straw that broke the camel's back was the plaster falling on people's heads in the office. The office was literally allowed to fall apart by the HSE. The Minister of State might ask why I am bringing it up in this debate. One of the last responses I got from this individual in the HSE, a gentleman called Dermot Halpin, stated: "The provision of community welfare services is, as you are aware, to transfer to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and consequently the HSE is mindful of the need not to commit to long term arrangements that may not fit into that Department's future service proposals." In other words he was suggesting he had done nothing about it for the past six years and was passing it on to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is a hospital pass from the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, and this gentleman to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen.
The point I would make to the Minister, Deputy Cullen, who is not here, is that Dungarvan is a good-sized town that needs an adequately located and equipped office. The hinterland is very big. I ask that the Minister investigate the matter. Somebody might ask why this is an issue of national significance. I would make the point that this is a very good example of how bad senior management in the HSE can be.
I acknowledge the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill, which is very important to us all. Deputy Deasy spoke about social welfare offices. We have examples in south Tipperary of two social welfare offices that were threatened with closure in recent years. While people were very concerned at the time, happily they remained open. Such offices form part of the infrastructure that people need. They do more than make payments. The officers can give advice, help and guidance. They know and have a link with the community. No pressure should be created to have such social welfare offices closed. If anything, their role should be expanded.
The Social Welfare Bill contains many provisions, covering a considerable budget. Some of the Government Deputies have said there was so much in it and people were so delighted that it makes me wonder if they are living in the same place that I live. I refer to the fuel allowance and the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, will know what I am talking about. Last Sunday, I was in Dundrum for a sale of work. Among the items on sale were trailer loads of timber. I could not believe the number of people who lined up to buy those loads of timber. Some elderly people were there an hour before the sale. Each trailer load of timber was sold for €400. That was fuel for people's homes. To get €400 in one contribution is a large amount of money for pensioners. However, the fuel allowance was not increased. A few years ago, it was possible to buy a load of timber for €100 and it now costs €400. The cost of oil has increased substantially. The fuel allowance does not take into account the savage increases in fuel costs. Considering some world market issues relating to oil prices, the fuel allowance should have been increased substantially last week. People should be very concerned that it did not happen.
I know that Deputy Curran will shortly speak about what he believes are great increases. However, the living alone allowance has not been increased for many years. I am concerned that most of the hardship in the country is experienced by unfortunate people living alone. The Government should seriously consider increasing the living alone allowance.
It has come to my attention in my constituency that crèches and other child care facilities that we are promoting in several areas are now required to pay rates. These crèches are badly needed by many people on social welfare and those rates will represent an additional cost and burden. The issue needs to be addressed. In one case, a small crèche catering for 30 children will need to pay more than €3,000 in rates next year.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill. The rent supplement is the only housing support available to many people on low incomes. More than 60,000 people in the private rented sector depend on rent supplement. They are in a very disadvantaged position when looking for accommodation because landlords blatantly discriminate against those receiving rent supplement and will not accept them. Often this forces tenants into the worst category of accommodation. Threshold's access housing unit is carrying out a survey of landlords on their attitude to rent supplement. Preliminary findings indicate that the biggest reason landlords will not accept rent supplement is because it is paid in arrears rather than in advance, which is the norm for the rented sector. Individuals and families in receipt of rent supplement are disadvantaged because they cannot pay their deposit and first month's rent upfront. Landlords are more likely to accept tenants who can pay such moneys in advance, which means that those who rely on rent supplement are at a complete disadvantage. Landlords do not like to accept rent supplement for two other significant reasons — the insufficient level of rent supplement payments and the unacceptable delays in processing applications. The current system is not fair to landlords or tenants, both of whom should be treated fairly. Every effort should be made to assist those who face poverty. People have to wait up to six weeks to receive rent supplement payments under the current system. Some tenants are refused the supplement when their applications are eventually processed, which leaves them owing their landlords six weeks rent.
Tenants in the private rented sector are facing higher rents. The latest daft.ie report shows that rents increased by an average of 9% between June 2006 and July this year. The increase in Dublin alone was between 8% and 12%. According to the most recent data, the market rent per month for a one-bed apartment in Dublin 1 and Dublin 2 is €1,122, or 81% of the minimum wage and 45% of the average industrial wage. Tenants are finding it increasingly difficult to afford rent payments. Rent caps have not changed to reflect soaring rents in Dublin, particularly in Dublin 1, Dublin 2 and Dublin 13. The current rent supplement system is insufficient because it does not respond to local rental changes or reflect the changes in the rental market.
It is accepted that the poor level of participation in the family income supplement scheme is a long-standing problem. Research undertaken by the Economic and Social Research Institute suggests that less than 33% of potentially eligible claimants receive family income supplement. Given that the supplement was introduced in 1984, it is stunning that a Minister can come to the Dáil 22 years later to tell Deputies that its take-up remains a fraction of its potential. Some 40,000 families are not receiving the supplement, even though they are entitled to €5,000 or more per annum. Many of them have to rely on dig-outs from family and friends, which should not be the case. Such persons should be made aware of their rights and entitlements. The State saves an enormous amount of money as a result of its reluctance to take a proactive approach to this matter. We need to look after the people I have mentioned. I could say much more on this matter, but I will allow my colleague to speak.
When I was at a wake last week, I met a gentleman who happened to be a Fianna Fáil supporter who said his pension represented a great increase on the pension received by his grandfather in the 1950s. Fianna Fáil supporters, including Deputies, often fail to acknowledge that increases in most social welfare payments such as fuel allowance are index-linked and subject to inflation. The Government failed to acknowledge that point during the circus that was budget day. It is natural that there will be increases in payments which are index-linked when inflation is taken into consideration.
The rate of increase is above the rate of inflation.
The Government does not account for inflation when it is considering increases in some social welfare hand-outs such as the widow's pension. Inflation is taken into consideration, however, in independent reports which recommend increases in ministerial salaries. I decided to share that anecdote with the House to assure Members that Fianna Fáil supporters in County Donegal are alive and well.
And happy.
And voting.
In 2006 the National Economic and Social Forum produced a report which acknowledged that there were barriers to labour market inclusivity. This is really what we are looking at. We are not interested in the hand-out mentality. We accept that people need hand-outs at certain intervals — for example, if they are not working as they progress through their career paths. The forum's working document, Creating a More Inclusive Labour Market, highlighted issues such as transportation and child care. It pointed out that literacy and numeracy problems were preventing people from entering the labour market. I remind the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, that the report stated the poverty traps encountered by many single mothers represented one of the main barriers to labour market inclusion. The budget will not lead to the elimination of poverty traps. Does the Minister of State agree that the very good report compiled by the National Economic and Social Forum which was presented to the Taoiseach in January 2006 but is now sitting on a desk should be heeded and re-examined? Will she facilitate the synchronisation of the various Departments to try to maximise labour market inclusivity which is badly needed?
When I met one of my constituents, a good Fine Gael supporter, on Monday night, she told me that when she went to collect her Christmas bonus, she met a man at the counter who had been receiving unemployment welfare assistance for a considerable period. The woman in question who has been receiving unemployment assistance for 12 months discovered that the man she had met at the counter was getting a Christmas bonus, but she was not. Why should a woman who had paid contributions towards stamps before she left employment 12 months ago not be entitled to a Christmas bonus, when long-term welfare recipients are? I would like to voice my concerns on behalf of the woman in question.
I would like to share time with Deputies Moynihan and Flynn.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Social Welfare Bill 2007. I compliment the Ministers for Finance and Social and Family Affairs on the measures they have proposed in these more challenging economic times, when we are looking at an economic growth rate of approximately 3%. The social welfare budget will increase next year by almost €1 billion, to approximately €17 billion. It may have been easier not to have honoured previous commitments. I will respond to Deputy McHugh's comments about increases in the rate of inflation.
The substantial package of measures announced in the budget last week and clarified in the legislation before the House is worth approximately €17 billion, which represents a significant increase. During the general election campaign the Government gave a commitment to increase the State pension to €300 per week. The increase of €14 per week provided for in the budget which constitutes the first step in that process will bring the contributory State pension to €223 per week. The increase of €12 per week in the non-contributory pension will bring it to €212 per week.
Deputy McHugh asked whether the increase of €14 in the State pension was in line with inflation. I will put some figures before the House in order that Deputies can judge for themselves. The State pension has increased by over 50% since 2002, from €147.30 in 2002 to €223.30 today. As the rate of inflation during that period was not close to 50%, the increase in the pension is significant. Anybody who tries to argue otherwise does not understand the manner in which we have delivered year-on-year absolute increases. It is incorrect to state the Government has not taken account of inflation in recent years.
The Government also made a strong commitment to support qualified adults. A significant increase of €27 per week has been provided for qualified adults over the age of 66 years in the budget, bringing such pensions to €200 per week, or 94% of the figure we are aiming towards. The commitment given will be honoured in the interests of equity. Those who receive qualified adult payments are mainly women who, for historic reasons, did not have an opportunity to work when this country was much different. This is a question of equity and those payments are being honoured.
It is worth noting that the household income of 42,000 pensioner couples will increase this year by approximately €41 a week, or nearly 11%. The previous speaker indicated that the increases were not inflation-proofed. I do not know what the inflation out-turn will be next year but I do not think anyone in the House would expect inflation to be anything in the order of that figure. In money terms it means a pensioner couple, of which there are 42,000, or 84,000 people, will receive in excess of €23,000, an increase of €2,200.
The respite care grant has continued to be increased and this is to be welcomed. It increased in the previous budget from €1,200 to €1,500 and again in this budget it increased to €1,700. The Government has made a commitment that this figure will hit €3,000 in the lifetime of the Government. I am glad that budget by budget this is being achieved on an incremental basis. I have no doubt this commitment will be honoured. Approximately 48,000 people are in receipt of the respite care grant and not just those in receipt of the carer's allowance but also those in receipt of domiciliary care allowance.
I note from the Finance Bill that the income disregards in respect of those in receipt of carer's allowance has also been increased, both for single people and for couples, in the case of couples to €665 a week. A couple in receipt of an annual income of €60,000 can still qualify for a reduced rate of carer's allowance.
I concur with comments made by previous speakers about family income supplement. This is a very important payment which has not had a sufficient take-up. I often wonder if this is because it is a social welfare payment. It is a payment which I actively promote in my constituency. I am astounded at the best of times at the number of people who are unaware of it. It is a significant payment for many people. Every year this issue is debated at the Committee of Public Accounts with the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I am aware the Department has tried to advertise and promote the scheme but many people who may qualify for family income supplement do not ordinarily have dealings with the Department of Social and Family Affairs because they are in employment. They are only in receipt of children's allowance and they are not familiar with the offices of the Department. I suggest a more proactive approach be adopted by Revenue rather than the scheme being solely based in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There are tens of thousands of families who would benefit from the scheme and who are entitled to do so. The departmental officials report regularly to the Committee of Public Accounts but significant inroads are not being made and this is regrettable.
I refer to rent allowance. I do not wish to talk about the figures involved. People often say landlords do not accept rent allowance but in my constituency they do. We must be careful because the Department of Social and Family Affairs is a big player in the market and it has the potential to significantly affect prices.
I have noticed in recent times a change which may either be one of policy or a change at local level. Some time ago the majority of cheques paid for rent allowance were not made payable to the tenant but to the landlord. I have noted in the last months a number of instances where the cheques from the community welfare officer were made payable to the tenant. In some cases the tenant did not pay the landlord. This is a situation that did not exist previously and which needs to be examined as it undermines the integrity of the system if a cheque is being paid and is not being passed on. This will lead to additional problems. I concur with previous speakers that it is a difficult area. The system itself must be more clearcut.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill 2007. I wish to raise a number of issues. The increases in State old age pensions have been of great benefit. These increases have been incremental over the past number of years. Many people in receipt of social welfare pensions have great regard for this payment and in the case of couples it provides a great income.
The habitual residence clause should be examined by the Government with reference to retired missionaries. These people left Ireland 40 or 50 years ago and are retiring after a lifetime of work in Africa, South America, the Philippines and other places. Provision should be made for them in the Social Welfare Bill by granting them a derogation from the habitual residency rule of two years' residence in Ireland prior to application for a State pension.
I acknowledge fewer people are now affected but when compulsory self-employed PRSI payment was introduced in 1988, a number of people contributed at the time but a number had not paid for ten years in order to qualify for a full contributory pension. In 1998 the Government conceded the need for a pro rata pension. However a number of people had paid the ten years. A constituent of mine had paid for ten years but because of a dispute over the date of birth, the person only qualified for the pro rata pension. I suggest granting a contributor seven tenths or eight tenths or whatever percentage of the contributions paid should be considered.
Since 27 September, anyone in receipt of a social welfare allowance who is providing full-time care and assistance to a family member or to anybody within the meaning of the carer's allowance scheme is entitled to an extra payment of a half-rate carer's allowance. The only people excluded from this allowance are those on jobseeker's allowance. This has been a fantastic scheme. Over the years the respite care grant has increased from €1,000 to €1,700 this year and has been of great benefit to people providing full-time care and assistance to a relative or other person in his or her own home. Those providing this care are contributing to the person being cared for but also to the State. Public representatives should always give due recognition to the people who are providing care and assistance because their dedication to their family member or to other people is second to none. The half-rate carer's allowance has been of significant benefit. Just because a person had been in receipt of an existing social welfare payment they were debarred from the payment. I have met people in my constituency office and at various functions and they have told me the payment has made a significant difference to their lives. It is right that the Government and the State should ensure older people are cared for. These are the people who worked hard in Ireland in frugal and more difficult times.
I wish to raise other issues relating to the Social Welfare Bill. It is a cheap shot for people to say single parents get everything from the State. Life can be very difficult for them. Family income supplements, FIS, are of great benefit. We must encourage people who are working for 20 hours per week to apply for FIS. Many people who have gone to political clinics or advice centres such as the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, have been informed about the family income supplement. However, not all those who are entitled to it benefit from it. We should encourage people to seek it. It is an extra payment that can be used to pay for a car, house, rent or whatever else.
The previous Government introduced free rental on mobile telephones for certain persons. An anomaly arises in regard to people with disabilities who are living at home who have a land line on which their parents pay rental. This may be due to an oversight in the introduction of various Acts and this matter should be examined.
The invalidity pension for persons who are permanently disabled is paid only to those who had paid PRSI contributions at some stage during their working life. However, people with intellectual disabilities never worked and are not entitled to this payment. The argument can be made that the disability allowance is more or less the same thing, but these people should be allowed to qualify for the invalidity pension because it provides a certain level of security. It is considered as a permanent and reckonable income for loans and otherwise. I urge that this matter would be examined.
I thank the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Cullen, for the extra billion euro they have invested in this year's budget. Well done to them.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I acknowledge the €900 million increase in social welfare payments which brings this to a very generous social welfare package. In 2008 a total of €17 billion will be spent on social welfare. Throughout the world Ireland is recognised as a country that has a very generous social welfare package for citizens who are entitled to it.
From recent debates on family income supplement, I am aware that only 40% of those who are entitled to FIS claim the payment. Deputy Curran made a good point in terms of a possible link-up with the Revenue to try to encourage people, who would not normally be in the social welfare bracket, to apply for it. Perhaps the reason the take up on FIS is so poor is due to a lack of information. I accept an advertising campaign was conducted by the Department but something else requires to be done when 60% of those who are entitled to it do not claim the payment. This is something we should work on over the next year.
I welcome the increase of €14 on the contributory pension, bringing it to €223.30, and the €12 increase per week in the non-contributory pension. I also welcome the fact the Government is working its way towards fulfilling its commitment that pensions will reach €300.
I am slightly disappointed that the Government did not fulfil its commitment to bring up the qualified adult payment to the same rate as the principal recipient's rate. I acknowledge the commitment given by the Minister on budget day on the qualified adult payment, which has been significantly increased this year, that he will work towards bringing parity between those two payments by next year. I feel very strongly about this issue. It is not justifiable that the qualified adult payment would be anything less than that of the principal recipient. I raised this matter with the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, last year and he did something about it. I refer to the qualified adult payment, which in 95% of cases is to the woman. In the majority of cases the principal social welfare recipient is the man and he claims for his spouse as a qualified adult.
I made the point last year to the then Minister, Deputy Brennan, that this payment should be made directly to the woman. He agreed with me and in his speech last year he mentioned that he would introduce legislation in March to enable the qualified adult payment to be made directly to, in most cases, the woman. This has not worked out in the manner I had intended. I wanted it to be acknowledged that every woman was entitled to an income in her own right. In the debate on the Social Welfare Bill 2006 the Minister stated his intention to transform the payment into what would be, in effect, a woman's pension in her own right.
The change does not apply to existing recipients of a qualified adult payment and women still do not receive the qualified adult payment directly. In the case of new applicants, if a husband ticks a box on the form stating he agrees the qualified adult portion can be paid directly to the woman, she can get the payment in her own right. That should never be the case. The point I was trying to make, which I thought was understood last year by the Minister, is that it would be accepted that the qualified adult payment would be a woman's entitlement, or indeed a man's in the small percentage of cases that relate to men, and that women would receive that payment in their own right without having to seek permission or the signature of the principal social welfare recipient.
I also seek the extension of this approach right across social welfare payments where a qualified adult payment is made. I would appreciate if the Minister would look again at this matter. Legislation was introduced last year but it has not worked out exactly as I intended. I believe it was the Minister's intention that a woman would, in effect, receive a pension in her own right. We have fallen well short of that.
I wish to refer to many other aspects of the Bill but I would be pleased if the Minister could address this one alone. I received numerous telephone calls from women on this aspect of social welfare payments. It would mean a great deal to so many women. I urge the Minister to re-examine this matter.
I wish to share time with Deputy Morgan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill. I agree with the points made by Deputy Flynn. I had intended to address some of those issues also, especially the need to treat all adults as individuals. I object to the use of the term "qualified adult", even though it may be an improvement on some of the terms used in the past. This issue needs to be addressed given that there is still a difficulty with people receiving the payment in their own right without having the approval, as it were, of their spouses. I support Deputy Flynn on this matter.
The increase in payment for a qualified adult is welcome and it is not too bad for those aged over 66, but it is still a small increase for people aged under 66. We need to treat all adults as separate individuals. One adult in a household should have equal rights with the other adult in a household and should not be treated as a lesser mortal in that context.
I spoke this morning on local radio, as many of us do at various times. I referred to family income supplement and the need for people to apply for it. Members on all sides of the House stated the FIS is still not being taken up by many people who are entitled to receive it. The payment is substantial and it is worth having, especially in a low income household. We have to disseminate this information in whatever way we can. I appreciate that as public representatives we try to do this in our own way, as we are all very conscious of it. When I spoke on the radio this morning I suspected I was probably not speaking to the people who were entitled to FIS because they were out at work. We need to disseminate this information in workplaces. As others have stated, people entitled to FIS are not generally dealing with the Department in any other way and for that reason probably do not think about the Department of Social and Family Affairs as a place where they might get support. I suggest that FIS needs to be advertised more widely in work places, and particularly in places such as corner shops, factories and where people tend to be on the minimum wage or work only the 19 hours one needs to qualify for FIS, where people's incomes are not necessarily large. The Department must continue making the effort to get the message out because many of those who see a reference to the Department assume it does not apply to them if they are at work. I am strongly of the view that it is important to get that message out because we need to provide an incentive to people who would be only a little better off by going out to work and the FIS should make a big difference to them.
While it does not relate to the Department, when it comes to medical cards and other health benefits we need to ensure that people in that income category are not losing out. All of the increased health charges and the raising of the threshold for the drugs repayment scheme, which were announced not here in the Chamber or in the budget but at a separate press conference by the Minister for Health and Children, hit those low-income families who tend to be the ones who find it difficult to make ends meet. They do not qualify for other kinds of supports such as back to school allowance and clothing and footwear allowances, unless they qualify directly for FIS. We need to remove those disincentives wherever possible.
That brings me to rent allowance which has been touched on by a number of Members. There is a disincentive for people to go out to work because they would lose their rent allowance if they did so. Such areas need to be addressed in a more holistic, cross-departmental way than heretofore. Often lone parents, in particular, find that if they lose their rent allowance it is really not worth their while going to work.
I have just come from the briefing on the community child care subvention scheme, which also is not the responsibility of this Department, from the various child care committees around the country who argue strongly that the changes proposed will hit people who are at work and on low incomes. The scheme taking over from the equal opportunities childcare programme, which was designed to encourage women to go to work, will be focused much more on people on social welfare and may provide a disincentive to people using community child care crèches to remain in or go out to work.
I am arguing that the Ministers who deal with these Departments, which all deal with this same category of person, should tailor all of their schemes to ensure the maximum support and opportunity for those who want to go out to earn a few bob, contribute to the economy and at the same time support their families and who do not want to find themselves out of pocket by doing so.
Generally, the social welfare increases amounted to €12 per week, and €14 per week in some cases. These are fairly small increases if one is coping with the increased costs of food and fuel in particular. The telephone calls I have been receiving from people tell me that the cost of foodstuffs which make up the basic weekly household bill are constantly increasing and this increase will not make a significant difference to their household income. I am particularly concerned because every year in January I get telephone calls from people living in local authority houses stating their pension just increased by whatever sum — it will be €12 this year — and the council is taking it back by increasing the rent. It is the same argument I made about the previous issue. It is a matter of Departments working together to treat these people as individuals rather than merely ticking one box in one Department and another box in another. If one gets an increase in pension and two weeks later the rent rises, the increase is not of much use. Something needs to be done about local authorities increasing rent on the basis of increases in social welfare.
Get the councillors to oppose their estimates.
The reason they do it is because they have these differential rent schemes and they are used to doing it in this way, but Government policy that would discourage local authorities from taking that money back in rent must be expressed. It happens——
I know it happens. Councillors should have a little more courage and say they will not to agree to it.
The problem might be that local authorities may not have enough money.
That is no excuse. One makes choices, just as anybody in Government does.
It really causes difficulty for the individual.
Like many others, I want to speak briefly about the carer's allowance. There is a large number of carers who do not receive carer's allowance because of the means test. My party has clearly and firmly stated the means test for carer's allowance should be removed. That is the only way to reach a position where the Department pays carers for their work, which is saving the State a fortune in terms of what it might cost if the person being cared for had to be institutionalised. We must keep improving the lot of carers and my position is we should remove that means test altogether.
I want to raise another issue in the time available. People who are laid off due to a shortage of available work or illness cannot claim for the first three days out of work. It is a particular problem for people who suddenly find themselves out of work with three days in which they are not entitled to any kind of social welfare payment. Resolving this would not involve much money but it would make a considerable difference for these families who suddenly find themselves with all the bills they have been used to paying out of their wages and without any money whatsoever for three days. I note the Minister has received a letter dated 15 November last from an individual in my constituency on the matter and I ask him to see if there is anything he can do about that anomaly which hurts families which suddenly no longer have an income.
I support Deputy Moynihan's point about mobile telephones. These telephones have become so common that the Department should be able to transfer to them a person's right to fixed charges for land-line telephones.
I welcome the opportunity to address the Social Welfare Bill and thank the Labour Party for sharing time.
Every year in early December there is quite a fuss over the budget. As every week there is a budgetary announcement of some kind or an increase through the various stealth charges, it is ironic that there is such a big fuss over the December budget.
Somebody once said that a society can be judged by how it treats its weakest. I accept that it can be difficult for a government, in a period of slowing economic growth, to budget a state's finances but it is at such times that a government's commitment to its most vulnerable is tested. Sadly, last week this Government was found wanting in that regard.
While we debate the Social Welfare Bill, which allows the most modest increases for our least well off, there are some figures that we must keep in mind. There are 290,000 people living in consistent poverty in this State — it is a shameful figure — many of whom are children. There are 770,000 people at risk of poverty, many of whom also are children. Last week this Government had the opportunity to take a decisive step towards meeting the national target of reducing consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, and to eliminating it completely by 2016. It did not take the opportunity.
Our social welfare system is so wrought with complexities and anomalies that the initial approach to last week's budget should have involved a complete overhaul of the system as it stands. The Minister should have, upon entering new office, examined the system and realised a new criteria for benchmarking needs to be set so welfare rates can reflect current living expenses in the State. He should have recognised that the system needs to be simplified and should have abandoned the 12-page application forms, such as the one for family income supplement. Automatic flagging systems should be put in place, perhaps through the taxation system.
Alarm bells should ring when the Department's staff says it does not understand some of the rules and regulations. The Minister should have identified the welfare traps the system creates when it fails to allow for smooth transition from welfare to work by, for example, not raising income thresholds for rent allowance supplement, which allows an individual to earn very little before he or she loses his or her rent supplement and, potentially, his or her home. He should have realised that "qualified adult status" is both hugely underpaid and discriminatory. He should also have learnt by now that our activation system needs to be overhauled. Paying job seekers a benefit that reflects nothing of what they earned before losing their jobs, then shunting them on to a FÁS course after three months, does not make an "activation" system.
The new Minister, who could have taken the opportunity to do these things and relay them to his colleague in the Department of Finance, along with a list of required resources, did none of this — a complete waste of an opportunity. The allocation to the Department of Social and Family Affairs has been distributed with little or no imagination, no foresight and no tangible results — just €10 or €12 of an increase. The record of the Government is to make grand gestures and throw out figures, while quietly and sneakily taking away increases with the other hand through stealth taxes and the like.
Last week, we were again forced to witness the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen, pretend to be Santa Claus, handing goodies out of his budget bag. Those of us who know how hard it is to survive on welfare were crestfallen when we heard the minimal increases. To add further to our disappointment, we heard of increases that will directly affect groups like the working poor, such as vehicle tax, accident and emergency and hospital stay-over increases. We can add to these the significant VAT our citizens pay and the ability of local authorities to set refuse charges. Any respite that should have been offered against these charges in the form of the Social Welfare Bill will mean nothing now to those citizens. There is only an increase of €12 per week for people out of work, €14 for pensioners and not a cent increase in the living alone or the fuel allowance. FIS income limits were raised by only €10. The majority of my colleagues across the Chamber would spend more than those amounts on a starter before lunch.
The Bill fails to ease the burden of the working poor. Almost a third of all households at risk of poverty are headed by a person with a job. The minimum increase in the FIS income threshold is a prime example of how little concern the Government holds for this group. These are the people we should target for the medical card. Instead, we had no increase in the medical card threshold and the threshold remains lower than the smallest social welfare payment. How does the Minister explain that?
The Bill fails to improve the living standards of pensioners. The Government lauds itself on the fact that it is on track to increase the pension to €300 by 2012. With the average industrial wage currently between €570 and €670 a week, how much value does the Government think €300 will hold in 2012? Pensions should have been increased by at least €20 this year.
The Bill does nothing for children. The early child care supplement does not solve the child care problem, even after the Minister flings another €100 a year at it. The failure to increase maternity leave and to introduce paid paternity leave shows how little the Government is committed to solving the child care problem. The back to school allowance does not reflect the true cost for families sending their children into our not so free education system, where school books alone can cost anything up to €500. The €2 million extra for the school meals programme will hardly do enough to ensure a State-wide roll-out of school meals. Children will continue to go to school hungry.
There was nothing new in the budget. There was no inspirational thinking and nothing along the lines of Sinn Féin's budget proposals, which called for the Government to overhaul the system to allow for better welfare to work measures and to ensure work is profitable for those on the lowest wages. There were no fresh ideas, like introducing a dietary and clothing allowance for pregnant women or allowing asylum seekers to take part in some form of paid work while they await news from our lengthy application procedures. Instead, the budget leaves them struggling on a direct provision of €19.10 a week.
The Government must get over the notion that social welfare is like a charity and that it, because it is holding the purse strings, must dole out resources like alms to the poor. Our society decided long ago that it wanted a welfare system. The system is not meant as a long-term solution for everybody, though there are some who will always be dependent on the State, but as a means to survive until circumstances improve. The Government is charged with distributing our resources fairly within that system. Every cent taken into the Exchequer belongs to the public. When a marginalised group such as children, the elderly or the disabled say they are struggling to survive, I demand, as a citizen, that they are given the welfare they need. They should not have to come cap in hand to either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to plead for increases.
Sinn Féin has submitted amendments to this Bill that call on the Minister to review a number of payments and the method by which they are paid. We will support the Bill, on the basis that any increase in welfare must be welcomed, but we will do so stating clearly that we want the Minister to get on with the job he is paid handsomely to do and make our social welfare system work. He must not let next year's budget be another in a long list of paltry, insulting hand-outs.
I wish to share time with Deputies Cyprian Brady and Chris Andrews.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I would be amazed if any of the Opposition ever said anything nice about the Government or if any of them welcomed the great increases the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has achieved in his Department, on which I congratulate him. If the Opposition was honest, I am sure there are elements of the budget, if not whole sections of it, that it would love to have supervised. If it was honest it would concede that and that in the past ten years we have had unbelievable increases in the provisions under the Department of Social and Family Affairs, up to €12 billion, if I am not mistaken. In 1997 it was below €5 billion.
It is up to €17 billion.
That is almost unbelievable. This is in a context where unemployment fell from 10% to approximately 4% now. These are revolutionary changes. It is not charity or generosity, but part of what Fianna Fáil believes in. Anybody who has independently analysed the budget, has admitted that Fianna Fáil has always been loyal and committed to providing proper social welfare in a fair manner.
The most encouraging aspect of the budget and of what the Minister had to say concerns the qualified adult allowance, about which everyone is excited. I would be amazed if members of the Opposition were not also encouraged by this development whereby qualified adults will be recipients in their own right. We have been heading in that direction for some time, not only in the tax code which has moved to individualisation, but in the fact that savings are assessed separately and that qualified adults can claim separately, albeit in restricted circumstances, as described by Deputy Beverley Flynn earlier. This was remarked on during the general election campaign.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.