Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 2008

Vol. 647 No. 1

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I welcome the opportunity to continue my contribution on our deliberations on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008. Section 8 raises the earnings limit for those in receipt of one-parent family payment to €425 per week. I note from discussions of this matter that some lone parents find themselves in a poverty trap. While I welcome the provisions governing family income supplement and efforts to enable people to return to part-time work, much more needs to be done because lone parents find themselves raising children alone for 101 different reasons. As public representatives, we meet lone parents in our clinics and see the difficulties they encounter in securing housing. They can only dream of getting on the property ladder. I welcome the disregard applicable to the one-parent family payment and ask that the Government continue to monitor the position.

Regarding the disregard for the non-contributory pension, the change to the disregard for insurable employment introduced in the 2006 budget has affected self-employed people on low incomes. While self-employed people earning below a certain threshold are not required to pay PRSI contributions, they are not entitled to a State pension when they reach 66 years. Those most affected tend to be single people and farmers who, for one reason or another, did not make insurable contributions. The State should consider extending the disregard for insurable employment for non-contributory pensions to moneys earned in self-employment. While disregards are in place for REPS and other payments to farmers, insurable employment must also be examined.

In my concluding remarks last night, I referred to the introduction of the provision concerning PRSI and the self-employed. The introduction in 1998 of what was known as the pro rata pension affected a small number of people who had reached the age of 55 years and had paid contributions for less than nine years. I ask the Government to consider giving this small group full pensions.

Expenditure on social welfare has increased substantially in recent years, as has the number of people entitled to a social welfare payment. Recent budgets have introduced record increases in social welfare payments, from old age pensions to carer's allowance. We must encourage people to make submissions on the Government's strategy on carers which will be chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach.

Farm assist was introduced almost ten years ago to help those in the farming community on low incomes. Subsequently, the scheme was considered a qualification point for the rural social scheme, which has delivered significant benefits across rural areas. The leadership and partnership groups are doing excellent work under the scheme by providing insulation for elderly people and engaging in many other worthwhile activities at little cost to the taxpayer. Many innovative initiatives under the scheme have benefited communities and taxpayers in the long term and the individuals participating in them. I have seen this throughout my constituency. The raft of social inclusion measures introduced by the Government and implemented by partnership and leadership groups have resulted in many people being employed in various projects, ranging from child care provision to rural social activities and beyond. Exchequer figures on their cost would not show their benefits to individuals and communities.

To recap, we must ensure that people connect with the strategy on carers which is being developed by the Government. Those involved in the care sector should tell their stories and ensure the position of carers is improved. It is also important to examine the habitual rule as it applies to overseas pensions for missionaries. I commend the Bill to the House and thank the Government, particularly the Minister, for the work it is doing on social welfare on behalf of the less well-off.

I welcome the increases in social welfare payments contained in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008. Deputy Moynihan raised the issue of pro rata pensions. When Deputy Jim O’Keeffe and I applied pressure on the Government on this issue, we secured an agreement that the matter would be addressed. The then Minister of State with responsibility for the issue, the current Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Noel Ahern, led us to believe that those who had paid contributions for five years would receive, at minimum, half pension plus a pro rata pension calculated on the basis of additional years of paid contributions. When the Bill was published, however, it provided for a half pension only, regardless of whether five years or ten years of contributions had been made.

I beg the Minister of State to reconsider the provision as a matter of urgency because individuals who paid contributions for ten years are receiving only a half pension. In one case of which I am aware, a person fell one day short of qualifying for a full pension. The Minister or State should be able to determine how many people would be affected by a change and how much it would cost.

The increase in child income support rates, one of the first issues to which the Minister referred, is welcome. However, it contains a number of anomalies. It goes to children not living in this country, but whose parent or parents work here. However, somebody who lived abroad for a couple of years and who is forced to come home to care for a parent or any person who is sick cannot obtain child income support or children's allowance and, apart from exceptional circumstances, they cannot receive carer's allowance. This has to do with the habitual residency condition introduced for entirely different reasons and it must be examined.

I welcome the increase in the upper limits for qualification of the one-parent family payment to €425. However, this benefit will not be sufficient in many cases unless proper care is available for children in crèches. The changes made by the Minister to crèche support must be re-examined as they are not sufficient in rural areas.

Carers play a crucial and much valued role in ensuring older people and people with disabilities can remain in their own homes for as long as possible. However, serious anomalies exist in this structure. I am aware of a young woman who lost her husband and who must now care for her father. She is solely on a contributory pension and rejoiced with me in the great news that a half-rate carer's allowance was available from September 2007. However, the value of the family residence she inherited was taken into account for means testing rather than the €100 per week she receives in rent from a friend. This regulation in the means test is at complete odds with the special deals the Department of Finance made with big builders and others for tax breaks in the building sector. I urge the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to re-examine this situation.

I provided the Department with the full facts of this case. If the matter is not rectified, the lady has made it clear she will have no choice but to return to work and let her father be cared for at full cost to the State in a nursing home, which neither of them wants. In general, I welcome the half-rate carer's allowance. As the departmental officials present today will verify, I spent ten years lobbying in the Dáil for it and I obtained 100% support for the proposal from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. However, the then Minister stated such a proposal was illegal. This decision was changed in the budget in 2006, I suppose for election purposes, and the rest is history.

I must highlight another anomaly within a means test structure. A PAYE worker on a non-contributory pension can earn €200 per week or €10,400 and still receive the full old-age pension. However, self-employed people such as plumbers, electricians, shopkeepers and farmers, having reached retirement age, can only earn €30 per week or approximately €1,500 per year. This is unacceptable and must be rectified.

Will the possibility of ending the means test system for the small number of people who do not have PRSI contributions be examined? Many people are in this situation because they were too late in life to make all the necessary payments after the scheme was first introduced in 1988. The Government, with the support of all parties, saw fit to provide medical cards to those over 70. I urge the Government to provide all of those aged over 70 with pensions. Elderly people living alone are in fear of revision requests being sent to them and this must be addressed.

The living alone allowance is €7.50 and as such is useless. A couple, both on pensions, living together in a rural area can hardly afford to have a car. When or if one of them dies or goes to a home, the remaining person on a pension will then receive this major boost of €7.50. What will €7.50 do in this day and age to help pay insurance, tax or run a car? This must be examined.

I pay tribute to staff in social welfare offices and in Sligo and Longford.

And the Minister.

They are extremely helpful and they provide a good service to the public and to Oireachtas Members.

I wish to warn the speaker after me that I will not use all of my allocated seven minutes.

I wish to speak on a matter which affects participants on the community employment scheme and which was raised by them with me in my constituency of Waterford. I had hoped the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, would be here and it is unfortunate that he is not. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, will pass on what I say.

The matter I wish to raise indicates the lack of joined-up thinking between Departments, in this instance as it affects people in lower income brackets. I could more simply state a fairly silly mistake was pointed out to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, and he has chosen to ignore it and not correct it. I will now point it out to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs in the expectation that he has a slightly less indignant attitude towards people on community employment schemes.

In this year's budget, an increase was given by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to participants in the community employment scheme with an adult dependant. The increase was €20 and it raised the amount for a participant with an adult dependant in the community employment scheme programme from €333.50 to €353.50. This sounds fine, except for the fact that unwittingly the €20 increase pushed this category of participants into the PRSI bracket and, in doing so, almost half of the increase was taken back in PRSI. Immediately and effectively, a €20 increase did not exist.

The threshold is €352; anything over this and community employment participants must pay PRSI contributions. A disregard is made with regard to the first €127 for employees. The balance is then calculated for PRSI purposes at 4%. In this case, it amounts to €9.06, which means the €20 increase is reduced to €10.94. If the budget increase had been €18.50, these employees would not have passed the threshold of €352 and would have enjoyed the full benefit of the increase.

We all make mistakes and as individuals we acknowledge them and deal with them. However, in this case, the Government has an alternative attitude. I wish to outline the response I received from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, when I raised this matter in a parliamentary question. The reply acknowledges the error. However, in the final paragraph the Minister states the aim of the community employment scheme remains as an active labour market programme with the emphasis on progression into employment — this is the good bit — where the employee would in any event be obliged to pay a PRSI contribution. The Minister accepts a mistake has been made but he is loath to admit it.

We hear many clichés in the Chamber and a few, such as smug, smarmy and arrogant, could be used to describe the response I received from the Minister, Deputy Martin. While I could not be bothered getting into that, I would like a reasonable response from the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on this matter. No one will starve over this as we are only talking about €10. However, at the very least, participants in community employment schemes deserve a ministerial response that does not insult their intelligence.

I, like Deputy Crawford, acknowledge how helpful and supportive the staff of the Department of Social and Family Affairs are to Members. They are more available at the end of a telephone line, a considerable change in the past eight years.

From constituency clinics, I am aware of several issues concerning this Bill, particularly the role of carers. In the budget, the rate of payment for carers was increased by €14 per week, as well as the respite care grant and the weekly income disregard for carer's allowance. The earnings threshold for entitlement to carer's benefit will be increased by €12.50. Any amount of the carer's benefit that was in excess of the basic rate will be disregarded for the purposes of rent and mortgage interest supplement.

While one is hardly going to reject these welcome proposed payment increases, they are piecemeal measures. The proposed national carers' strategy needs to be developed to ensure supports and services are provided for carers and that their health and well-being can be addressed. An adequate and fair system of remuneration must be put in place.

Carers must also be facilitated in terms of training. For many, it is an entirely new area with nursing and medical issues. Some caring for elderly people may be elderly themselves but get little support in developing their expertise. I look forward to the publication of the strategy to address these issues.

From the debates on the budget and this Bill, it is obvious the role of carers is of real concern and they need their voices heard. No one doubts the contribution they make to society. Financially, the Carers Association estimates the work of family carers saves the State over €2.1 billion per annum. All Members recognise the value carers provide to the State.

The health strategy announced by the Department of Health and Children and the Health Service Executive, HSE, puts more emphasis on community care. Such an approach will allow people live longer in their own homes, not becoming dependent on nursing homes or long-term care institutions. The role of the carer will be essential in delivering this policy objective.

I look forward to the publication of the Government's carers' strategy and that it will recognise carers are individuals themselves who need a work-life balance. I hope measures will be introduced to allow carers leave work in emergency situations. Carers should be put to the centre of the debate. Flexibility is very important. Facilitating them and recognising their contribution will go a long way towards improving their quality of life and health.

Another welfare issue that regularly comes to my attention is that of one-parent families and rented accommodation costs. Up to 25% of families are one-parent families with 21% of children living in one-parent families. Up to 80,000 lone parents are in receipt of the one-parent family payment. Lone parents, however, experience the highest levels of consistent poverty with approximately 40% of lone-parent households at risk of poverty.

The cost of rented accommodation for lone parents can be very high. Rent allowance and rent supplement levels do not match the high levels of rents demanded. Many of those in receipt of such benefits are lone parents. Rents have escalated recently. While today's newspapers report the level of rent increases is levelling out, rents have not gone down. A cap was introduced to reduce the level of rents but it is not working. While the rental accommodation scheme will ensure security of supply for tenants with support from the local authority, the uptake of the scheme has been varied across the country. One only has to look at the registry on www.daft.ie to get a clear indication of the high level of rents demanded by landlords. It is having a detrimental and negative effect on those dependent on rent supplement, particularly lone parents. I hope the Minister will address this issue. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, will be well aware of this issue as it must come across her desk regularly.

The Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008 provides for the implementation of certain social welfare improvements announced by the Minister for Finance in the 2008 budget. These include increases in child benefit, early child care supplement and the respite care grant. Provision is also made for an increase in income limit for the one-parent family payment and a change in the assessment of income for the purposes of qualification for the payment.

I congratulate the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, on his successful negotiation of the social welfare package of €900 million against the reduced financial position announced in December 2007. This arises not only from my general interest in the area but also from my recent appointment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs under the chairmanship of Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae, who succeeded Deputy Willie Penrose, a colleague of the Acting Chairman, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. I do not wish to patronise, but I always pay tribute to the work of Deputy Penrose in this regard. He kept the joint committee on an even keel. In this Chamber politics must be played, and that is fair enough, but I am sure the Deputies opposite will agree that at joint committee level, where possible, people should be seen to be working together. As the Acting Chairman and I discovered this morning, that is not always possible in some committees, but it is something we should try to achieve.

I note the Minister's comments in his speech last night to the effect that the generous package contained in the Bill represents nearly half of all additional current Government spending announced in the budget and that it brings total expenditure on social welfare in 2008 to just under €17 billion. Deputies on all sides of the House should acknowledge the increased level of expenditure and the benefits it brings to almost all households. I represent the constituency of Dublin South-West which, like every other constituency, has experienced challenges in the area of social welfare that have demanded a response over the years. I live in a town which many years ago experienced the particular challenge of unemployment.

Is it Tallaght?

It is an expansion.

Of course, Tallaght is a different place today. I am not saying there are no problems and challenges but, like many other areas, it has undergone considerable improvements. In the context of this debate it is important to point out that where difficulties and challenges remain, the Department of Social and Family Affairs must always be in a position to respond and to do so in a caring way. I have often made the point that the services provided by the Department must always be client-friendly. We must stress to the Department the need to continue to promote its services in a positive way.

I remember, many years ago at the opening of an information centre, former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald making the point that the work of public representatives would be reduced somewhat if the services offered to the public were easily identifiable and available. I am not just talking about the Department of Social and Family Affairs, but it is relevant to its work. Many of the queries we all get at our clinics every week would not be necessary if this were the case. There has been a lot of progress in recent times, but it is something we must continue to work on. To be parochial for a minute, I will mention the excellent Department of Social and Family Affairs facility in Tallaght, which is situated in a first-class modern building and does exactly what we would ask of it — it provides a good service to the public in a client-friendly way. We should continue to establish more of these services. I hope that this type of facility, which is available in the third largest population centre in the country, will become available in as many centres as possible throughout the country.

The Government's commitment to child income support is demonstrated by the fact that nearly €148 million, or €194 million if we include the early child care supplement, has been allocated to improve the range of supports for children. The policy direction followed by the Government in recent years has included the dedication of substantial resources to the universal child benefit scheme. Budget 2008 provided for payment of an additional €2 per week in the qualified child increase, which is paid to all social welfare recipients with children. It also provided for increased weekly income thresholds for all FIS family sizes, with additional resources being directed towards larger families as research has shown that this is where poverty is more likely to exist. I also welcome the Minister's announcement that these improvements will benefit 26,500 families who are already receiving the payment and will entitle a further 2,700 families to that payment.

I am also pleased with the increase of €6 in the lower monthly rate of child benefit and €8 in the higher rate, bringing the new monthly rates to €166 for each of the first two children and to €203 for the third child and subsequent children. The increase will benefit more than 570,000 families in respect of approximately 1.1 million children. This is to be welcomed. The Bill before us also provides for an increase of €100 annually in the early child care supplement, bringing the annual rate to €1,100 and the quarterly rate to €275. This will benefit 420,000 to 430,000 children by the end of 2008 and is a further demonstration that the Government's commitment to child care is very much in place.

Other colleagues, including the previous speaker, mentioned the need to support lone parents. I noted with interest the Minister's contribution on lone parents and the Government discussion paper proposals for supporting lone parents, which recommended expansion of the availability and range of education and training opportunities for lone parents, extension of the national employment action plan to focus on lone parents and the introduction of a new social assistance payment for low-income families with young children. This is an issue of specific importance to me in many areas of my constituency. At my weekly clinics in Tallaght, Firhouse, Greenhills and Templeogue, and throughout Dublin South-West, I have encountered many cases in which the need for the facilities——

Are they next weekend's clinics?

Unlike some of the country Deputies, I only do nine clinics a week. I know some Deputies do 30. I get around and I spend as much time in my constituency as possible.

I am much happier in Tallaght than in the city centre.

I have encountered many cases in which the facility to increase the lone parent family income is urgently needed. It is interesting that other colleagues referred to the issue of lone parents. I know there are political points to be made about what the Minister, and the previous Minister, said in debates, but there is no question that we need to consider this issue in particular. Other colleagues mentioned the challenges faced by lone parents, including, as mentioned by Deputy Deirdre Clune, the issue of rent subsidies. We must take account of the fact that €392 million was paid out last year in rent allowances. It must be pointed out that this is not sustainable for ever. While local authorities are considering the situation, young people and lone parents are being caught in the poverty trap. The only people who benefit are landlords. I do not want to pick on landlords, but in every one of our constituencies we hear from people living in sub-standard accommodation for which a considerable amount of money is being paid through the social welfare scheme, although in the end the families have nothing to show for it. This has been going on for quite some time. I suspect the Minister knows there is agreement across the political spectrum that something needs to be done about this and I hope he will be brave enough to grasp that nettle.

Many lone parents who come to me and who are trying to obtain local authority housing make the point that with improvements in the areas of child care and employment, they are caught in a poverty trap whereby they want to return to work and look after themselves and their families better but they are caught in a bind. I have always made the point that the social welfare code should facilitate people as much as possible in this regard because the ultimate goal should be to improve people's circumstances and help them get back into work or training. I hope this debate will continue.

In view of the high levels of consistent poverty among lone-parent families, the Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, recommended that the upper income limit for receipt of the new social assistance payment should be €400 per week. Budget 2007 realised this increase, and I welcome the increase to €420 in the upper earnings limit for qualification for the one-parent family payment that is included in the Bill. I also welcome the Minister's commitment that any new scheme to support low-income parents can only be introduced when the necessary co-ordinated supports and services are put in place on the ground by other Departments and agencies.

I agree that the testing of the non-income recommendations contained in the discussion paper is vital for any successful roll-out of that plan. These recommendations are being tested in Coolock and Kilkenny. Needless to say, I would have liked Tallaght to have been selected but, as they say, I cannot win them all.

Like other colleagues, I express my admiration for people throughout the country who support carers. When my late father was quite ill, I saw the challenges this kind of situation can bring. From my work in my constituency, I know that it is a particular challenge. I know that the home help group based in Tallaght Welfare Society provides much support and carries out a considerable amount of work in that regard. The Carers Association, which is based in nearby Clondalkin, also carries out a considerable amount of work. I am glad that we get a considerable amount of interaction with and reaction from that group. It is important that we continue to do that. None of us should be afraid to support their work in that regard and to continue to press the Department and make the point to the Minister that improvements must continue.

We all know that carers play a critical and much valued role in ensuring that our older people and people with disabilities can remain in their homes for as long as possible. We should not forget that supporting and recognising carers in our society is and has been a priority of the Government since 1997. It is important that we continue to stress that point. It is important for us to continue to take from our constituencies various examples of how people are challenged in that regard and continue to tell the Government that it is a good use of public money to look after carers. I hope this would continue to be the case.

I also welcome the commitment to carers that has been reinforced in the national partnership agreement, Towards 2016, and the programme for Government, both of which include significant commitments in the area of caring. These include commitments to increase the level of the respite care grant, to keep the scope for further development of payments to carers under review and to ensure that those on average industrial earnings continue to qualify for carer's allowance.

I welcome the fact that this Bill provides for an increase in the respite care grant of €200, bringing the value of the grant to €1,700 for each care recipient. The fact that this measure will benefit over 48,000 carers in 2008 demonstrates the scale of the support that ordinary family members make in this area. We should continue to support them in that meaningful way without patronising them.

As we know, budget 2007 provided for a fundamental reform of the social welfare system for carers, including the introduction of the half carer's allowance. Under the new arrangements, which came into effect in September last year, people in receipt of certain social welfare payments other than carer's allowance or benefit who provide someone with full-time care and attention can now retain their main payment and receive another payment, depending on their means, the maximum of which is equivalent to a half-rate carer's allowance. The new arrangements apply to almost all weekly social welfare payments and to people in receipt of the qualified adult allowance. The beneficiaries of these arrangements are people currently in receipt of carer's allowance who may have underlying eligibility for another social welfare payment, such as the contributory State pension, and people currently in receipt of other social welfare payments who are also providing full-time care and attention who may now qualify for an additional payment. I welcome the Minister's confirmation that, to date, almost 7,000 national carers have benefited from these new arrangements.

In respect of the development of the national carers strategy, I welcome the Minister's comments and look forward to its report being made available this summer. I have already mentioned the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs and I hope that, at that level, we can all continue to look in a very positive way at where we have been, where we are and where we want to go. We have gone through a period where, clearly, the economy was in sound shape and I believe the country and all our communities benefited in that regard. I do not agree with the view that the bottom has fallen out of the world but there are challenges ahead. I have no problem with every Department fighting its own corner and every community fighting for its rights. However, we should all remember that social inclusion is very important. As the Taoiseach has often said, when all boats are rising, let us remember the small boats. If all boats are being challenged, let us remember the small boats. I hope the Minister continues to do that. I will not revisit what I said earlier but I congratulate the Minister on his efforts in that regard.

Deputy Deenihan has cautioned me on more than one occasion not to praise Ministers too much but I am not afraid to praise Ministers who do their job. As a Fianna Fáil backbencher, I will continue to press the Government and the Minister to ensure that the vulnerable people in our communities will continue to be facilitated and looked after.

The Deputy is up there with Conor.

If one looks back over the past number of years and at what this Minister achieved in a very definite way last December, one can see that improvements have been maintained as far as social welfare payments are concerned. All of us in our constituencies, be they in Cork, Tipperary, Mayo, Waterford, Clare or the Dublin region, often get calls from people who tell us that they get good social welfare payments and increases and must then deal with factors like the local authorities ambushing their rents. I know local authorities will have a view about that. Somebody should grasp that particular nettle. Where families are challenged or are having difficulties, we should try to create a situation where the increases impact on them and are not gobbled up by other costs. I have referred to this matter on a number of occasions.

The work of the Department of Social and Family Affairs is very important. It is important that the Department continues to look after the vulnerable and those in need but even in the circumstances we spoke about concerning the economy, it should also keep an eye on the fact that at the end of the day, the ideal for families under pressure is to get people back to work. I hope that this continues to be very much a part of the ethos of the Department.

I congratulate the Minister on his progress. As someone once said, there is a lot done, more to do but the Minister is on the right road. I am satisfied that the Department is in safe hands.

The Deputy will be here around the fairy fort.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Tom Hayes, Pat Breen and Michael Bannon, with five minutes for each speaker. I would appreciate it if the Acting Chairman could let me when my five minutes are up.

I wish to raise two important issues and put a few questions to the Minister and his officials about the payment of child benefit outside the State. Will the Department launch an immediate investigation into this area? If these people have left the State, are they still entitled to claim child benefit? If they have made applications and are working in the State, they are legally entitled to get the payment for children outside the State but what happens if they leave the State and work elsewhere?

Instead of attacking farmers and those on farm assist, we should immediately check this matter, which I will monitor over the next number of months. There should be an immediate investigation to find out how many people are drawing child benefit outside the State, whether they are working in the State and the last time an official from the Department of Social and Family Affairs checked to see whether they were in the State. I understand that a sizeable number of people are drawing child benefit who have left the State and who think that they are still entitled to the payment because they were once here.

They are robbing the taxpayers and I want an investigation into it immediately. The Minister's officials should leave alone the poor farmers who are hardly able to live on what they earn. Every day officials are out checking them to find out how much they got in agriculture payments. They would be better off going after the people who are defrauding the State rather than those who need money to live on a day-to-day basis.

My second point relates to the waiver charges, an issue I raised when I was social welfare spokesman. I ask the Minister and his officials in the Department to try to do something for people once and for all who must pay for refuse services. I ask that it be included as part of the household package with their units of electricity allowance, television licence and the free schemes for elderly people who are on a low income. That is the biggest rip-off affecting elderly people and they are finding it very difficult. The local authorities have washed their hands in terms of responsibility for refuse. They have handed it over to the private sector but those in the private sector have no respect. They are robbing old people. There is no waiver scheme in place. When the Minister gives an increase in social welfare, the local authorities take a major part of that increase and now it is being used in respect of refuse collection. I ask the Minister to investigate that immediately.

Some local authorities have very good waiver schemes, both with private operators as well as their own. It is a matter for the local authorities. Some of them are very good.

They have washed their hands of responsibility for this area. It has been handed over to the private sector.

It is abdication of responsibility.

We need clear legislation on it. The Minister has an obligation to ensure that the means of people on social welfare are protected. There is little point in the Minister giving them an increase if the private sector takes it off them. It is a problem. The same applies to the local authorities.

It is not my responsibility. It is local government.

It is the responsibility of all of Government. That is what is wrong with the local authorities. In the past 15 years my local authority has not revised the guidelines on the amount people can earn. When the Minister gives them an increase every year, the local authority takes it off them.

That is terrible. I agree with the Deputy.

I am asking the Minister to protect them.

Protect our eardrums please.

I do not want any lectures from the professor on the opposite side of the House.

Do not be insulting.

Do not lecture me. I will not take any lecture from Deputy Mansergh.

I will not take any lectures from the Deputy.

Deputy Ring without interruption, please. The Deputy has one minute remaining.

I will be there for the weak in society. I will defend them.

The fuel allowance should be available throughout the year because we do not have good weather in this country.

People who have paid into a second pension and are over the €100 mark should not be means tested. It is wrong that they are not entitled to the fuel allowance. It does not pay people to work in this country. Those people have worked, paid their dues and they should get the fuel allowance.

I hope the Minister does not inject such emotion into me.

I did not say a word.

The Minister's colleague on that side is looking after him.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to what is an important debate each year. I wish to address a number of issues, the first of which is the fuel allowance. Figures released indicate that 18.4% of Irish households, almost one in five, experience fuel poverty. People cannot afford to keep themselves warm during the cold months of the year. With a bag of coal costing €14 and a tank of oil costing almost €1,000, there is a real problem in terms of the fuel allowance. We have had a cold and wet winter and it is unfair that people get a fuel allowance of €18. They cannot afford the oil, coal and timber they must buy to keep their houses warm. If anything needs to be changed that issue must be addressed, particularly in terms of older people. It is impossible to keep a damp, cold house heated on that amount of money. I implore the Minister to examine the fuel allowance in the context of the Social Welfare Bill.

Housing aid for the elderly is another issue I have raised on many occasions. That is a wonderful scheme. I realise it has been changed and taken before the councils but the number of people who want to avail of the scheme on a yearly basis is very high. I have seen that at first hand across my own constituency. Families have been helped under that scheme and it should be re-examined with a view to allowing a greater number of people avail of it. Provision for replacing windows and doors, and other cost saving measures in terms of heating, should be made available for older people living in old council houses, old farm houses in rural areas and old local authority houses in our towns. There is a real need in regard to the housing aid for the elderly scheme. For a small amount of money we could get a major return in terms of cutting costs. More people should be able to avail of the scheme.

I realise this Minister's Department is not responsible for FÁS schemes but people on FÁS schemes must be unemployed or on social welfare. A serious situation has arisen in my constituency, and I am delighted Deputy Mansergh is in the Chamber because I am aware he is doing some work on it. There are people who do not know if they will be on those schemes in two weeks time or thrown to the wolves, so to speak, in terms of earning money. Those people have made a good contribution to their communities be it through tidying up graveyards, school grounds or helping elderly people. We have championed that in Tipperary because we have a very successful scheme but we are now being put under pressure because the Minister, Deputy Martin, does not appear to be willing to address that problem.

The other issue I want to address is people qualifying for local authority houses. It takes too long to get people on local authority housing lists, particularly now when budgets are tighter and banks are not freely making mortgages available to people. That issue must be addressed to ensure those people know whether they are on or off the housing list. It is unfair to let the issue drag on for so long.

The Chair might indicate when I have used four and a half minutes of my time. I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. While welcoming some of the increases in social welfare payments, I take this opportunity to highlight the inadequacies in the current system and the difficulties being faced by those at the coalface of the system.

The Conference of Religious in Ireland, CORI, in response to budget 2008, stated that the problem of poverty has not been addressed with the working poor remaining a major issue. This is the core issue. In spite of the wealth created by the economy in the past decade, the changes in this Bill do little to deal with the problems of social exclusion.

While budget 2008 committed a package of social welfare measures totalling nearly €900 million, little has changed for the plight of those who are in need. Budget 2008 was this Government's opportunity to show that it was serious about reform, reducing child poverty, improving the plight of carers and the Minister's commitments in the programme for Government and Towards 2016, but the Minister has failed the examination.

I will turn to some of the specifics of the Bill. The increase in the non-contributory and contributory old age pension of €12 and €14 respectively is welcome but it is eaten up, so to speak, by the cost of living. Age Action Ireland claims that one in five pensioners is at risk of poverty while 18,000 are unable to pay for a winter overcoat or an extra pair of shoes. They cannot afford to buy the meat or fish that will ensure they have a staple diet.

Half of the pensioners depend on the State pension as their sole source of income and more than one third of these are on non-contributory pensions. In the programme for Government, the Government committed to increasing the State pension to €300 per week. The failure of the Government to increase the fuel allowance is astonishing, given the 58% increase in oil prices in the past 12 months, the largest increase in the past ten years. No older person should be sitting in the cold, afraid to light a fire or turn on a heater because they cannot afford the cost of fuel. The Minister should have paid more attention to this in the budget.

The greatest failure of the Government is its inability to recognise the invaluable contribution made by carers throughout Ireland. There are 150,000 carers working 3.5 million hours every week and saving the State over €2.1 billion each year, yet only one in six carers qualify for this allowance. For those who qualify, an increase of €14 is wholly inadequate.

Caring for a loved one is not just a job, it is a vocation. These are ordinary people coping in extraordinary circumstances. They suffer physical, emotional or financial stress and the majority are caring for dependent older people, children or adults with disabilities. Voluntary groups have mushroomed throughout the country to support carers. I spoke to a woman in west Clare who was struggling to cope. All she wanted was a break for an hour or two in the week so that she could go for a cup of coffee with someone. However, she does not think it will happen in the near future.

The West Clare Caring for Carers group is doing Trojan work in west Clare. The group is frustrated by the lack of respite care. The fact that there is no one available to provide breaks is the greatest area of concern and is more prevalent in rural areas. While one can apply to have someone transferred to a nursing home for a two-week break, a person needs more than this. I welcome the increase in the respite care grant from €200 to €1,700 but some say it should be higher again. Hopefully the Minister will deal with that in the future.

The lack of home help hours and the shortage of funding for this essential service does little to assist these carers. Even if there is a person available locally to do the work, in several instances there is no funding available from the HSE to cover the hours. The national carers strategy, which the Government promised for the end of 2007 is, like all the promises made by the Government, consigned to a dustbin. The completion of this strategy, putting in place a comprehensive plan for carers, cannot be delayed further.

The year 2010 has been nominated European year for combating poverty and social exclusion. If the Government is to achieve its commitment, the provisions outlined in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008 fall well short. The Bill is another case of a little done, more to do.

The Government engaged in much spin in respect of the budget and what it delivered. There was little in the budget to tackle poverty. The Government spent more on spin doctors in the past ten years than on tackling real problems in society and rolling out community care services. The Government did little to lift old people from the poverty trap and leave them comfortable in their retirement. It ignored the poor, the ill and the disabled and those who care for those groups. It also ignored farmers' wives.

Every week 3.5 million hours are worked by 150,000 family carers, yet only one in six carers qualify for the carer's allowance. The Carers Association estimated that the work of family carers in Ireland saves the State over €2.2 billion per year, yet the allowance has only been increased by a miserly €14. We are aware of the wonderful services provided by carers and if they were not there the State would have to provide these services. Fine Gael believes that people should have their means individually assessed to demonstrate that it is the carer and not the carer's partner who provides the care. The carer's partner's income should be excluded from the means test. That would be fair and just. It is clear that the current subvention for nursing home care has fallen far out of line with increased charges in nursing home fees etc.

Throughout the State, carers find it difficult to take up part-time work because the rules on working and receiving the carer's allowance are restrictive. The last budget gave the Government a golden opportunity to ease the restrictions by raising the working hours limit to 20 hours per week, enabling more carers to take up part-time employment. Unfortunately, this did not happen despite promises made on every doorstep in the country before the last general election.

There is unfair pension and PRSI coverage for farm spouses working on farms. Where a spouse or partner assists in the day-to-day running of the farm business but is not a business partner in the formal sense, the spouse is not covered for social insurance purposes as a self-employed person or an employee. They are treated as qualified adult dependants as regards payments, benefits and pensions.

The same goes for people who retired under the marriage ban in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Many women who are wives of gardaí are affected by this. The Government must recognise the role of farm spouses working on farms by allowing spouses or partners to make PRSI contributions to qualify for self-employed social insurance benefits, including contributory State pensions. Personal PRSI coverage would provide long overdue recognition of the status of the farm spouse or partner as a person who makes a very important and independent contribution to the family farm, the economy and society. For a long time I have advocated that where a spouse works on a farm without formally structured income by means of a partnership arrangement and does not have PRSI coverage, the spouse should be provided with the option of alternative coverage, such as those who are self-employed, for a flat rate annual contribution of up to €200 where a farm income threshold of €20,000 applies and a farm income related contribution of 2% above that income level. The contribution by the self-employed spouse should be voluntary. The main condition should be that the spouse is working on the farm and not covered by PRSI in her own right.

Many female spouses, as with other women in the workforce, have worked as employees or have been self-employed for part of their careers and have then left the workforce to raise children or care for incapacitated or elderly relatives. The current home maker disregard scheme is a limited response to this situation. We should move from the PRSI disregard to a PRSI home maker beefed up credits scheme. This would recognise the value of the woman's role in the home to society. It would also ensure a more comprehensive pension entitlement.

I have serious concerns about the treatment of a relatively small group of self-employed people, mainly farmers, who are excluded from the State's contributory pension because of the ten-year rule. These people were in the 50 to 60 year age bracket in April 1998 and do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for the State contributory old age pension. Eligibility for the special 50% State contributory old age pension should be extended to those aged 60 to 65 in April 1998. Those who were deemed by their accountants not to have an income at that time should be given similar rights. We must encourage better pension provision for farmers to enable younger people to take up farming as a career. This is not happening because the Minister has ignored the farming community with regard to pension for far too long.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share