Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Mar 2008

Vol. 188 No. 20

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008: Second Stage.

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

This is the second of two Bills to implement the social welfare package of €900 million announced in last December's budget. This generous package brings total expenditure on social welfare in 2008 to just under €17 billion and represents nearly half of all additional current Government spending announced in last December's budget.

The Social Welfare and Pensions Bill provides for the implementation of certain social welfare improvements announced in the budget for 2008. It also contains the statutory basis for the administration of the blind welfare allowance and the domiciliary care allowance by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. These schemes are currently administered by the Department of Health and Children and their transfer is part of the Government's health service reform programme. The Bill also provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, the Pensions Act 1990, and consequential amendments to the Family Law Act 1995 and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996.

The social welfare budget package provides approximately €148 million, or €194 million when the early child care supplement is included, to improve the range of supports provided for children. The 2008 budget provided increases of 6% or above in overall child income support through a combination of child benefit, qualified child increases, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and the early child care supplement.

The policy direction followed by successive Governments in recent years has included the dedication of substantial resources to the universal child benefit scheme. This represents part of an ongoing objective of reforming income support for children to reduce work disincentives by making child income support more neutral vis-à-vis the employment status of the parent. The policy focus has been driven in part by the recognition that the loss of qualified child increases by social welfare recipients on taking up employment could act as a disincentive to taking up available work opportunities.

The introduction of the national minimum wage in 2000, together with improvements in the in-work family income supplement, FIS, scheme, including the re-focusing of the supplement's income thresholds on larger families from January 2006, have reduced further the impact of the loss of qualified child increases in the decision to take up full-time employment. In view of these changed circumstances, qualified child increase rates were increased somewhat in 2007 and 2008, the first such increases since 1994.

The agreed programme for Government also contains a series of welfare reforms aimed at prioritising the interests of families and children. Under the terms of an earlier social partnership agreement, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, was requested to examine the feasibility of merging the family income supplement with qualified child increases to create a single second tier child income support. Such a payment would be aimed specifically at targeting child poverty by channelling resources to low-income families without creating significant disincentives to employment. The commitment to examining such a change was embodied in subsequent social partnership agreements, including Towards 2016.

The NESC decided not to adopt a definitive position on the issue and has instead recently published a paper in its research series setting down the complex policy and technical challenges involved. The paper will be of help in informing further developments in this area. The importance of targeted income support to families and children continues to be a high priority for the Government and recent changes have seen substantial improvements in this area.

The 2008 budget provided for payment of an additional €2 per week in the qualified child increase, formerly called the child dependant allowance, 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 at larger families as research has shown that is where poverty is more likely to exist. These improvements will benefit some 26,500 existing families and entitle a further 2,700 families to the payment.

These changes represent a more selective approach to child income support through targeting children in poorer households while limiting the extent to which employment disincentives are increased. Maintaining this balance will remain a priority in consideration of future policy changes in this area.

I am also pleased to continue the policy of increasing child benefit this year. The Bill provides for an 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 and subsequent children. The increase in child benefit will be effective from April 2008 and will benefit more that 570,000 families in respect of approximately 1.1 million children.

The Bill, on behalf of the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children, also provides for an increase of €100 in the annual rate of the early child care supplement, bringing the annual rate to €1,100 and the quarterly rate to €275. This increase will apply from the first quarter of 2008 and will benefit up to 430,000 children by the end of 2008.

The Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, recommended expansion of the availability and range of education and training opportunities for lone parents, an 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.

Recognising the high levels of consistent poverty among lone-parent families, the report also recommended the upper income limit for the receipt of the new social assistance payment should be €400 per week. The 2007 budget realised this increase and I am happy to go further in this Bill by increasing the upper earnings limit for qualification for the one parent family payment to €425.

The EU survey of income and living conditions statistics for 2006 suggests there is still some way to go in alleviating the risk of poverty faced by many lone parents. I am still convinced the long-term aim of the proposed new social assistance payment, to help people to achieve financial independence by supporting them into training and education and enabling them to enter the labour force, offers the best way out of poverty and social exclusion. The development of 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.

That is why the non-income recommendations contained in the discussion paper are being tested in two areas, Coolock and Kilkenny. These tests are focused on identifying and resolving any practical and administrative issues which may arise in advance of the scheme being introduced. The tests are nearing completion and a report will be made to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion. The tests will allow for operational and logistical co-ordination between the relevant Departments and agencies to be considered and will facilitate the development of the policy and operational details of the new social assistance scheme and accompanying supports.

As we all know, carers play a critical and much-valued role in ensuring that older people and those with disabilities can remain in their own homes for as long as possible. Supporting and recognising carers in our society has been a priority of the Government since 1997. I assure Senators that we are committed to supporting care in the community to the maximum possible extent. This commitment to carers has been reinforced in the national partnership agreement, Towards 2016, and in the programme for Government, both of which include significant commitments in the area of caring. These include commitments to increase the amount of the respite care grant, to keep the further development of payments to carers under review and to ensure that those on average industrial earnings can continue to qualify for carer's allowance. The Bill provides for an increase of €200 in the respite care grant, bringing the value of the grant to €1,700 for each care recipient. This measure will benefit more than 48,000 carers this year. The increase in the respite care grant will take effect from June 2008.

The primary objective of the social welfare system is to provide income support. As a general rule only one weekly social welfare payment is payable to an individual. Persons qualifying for two social welfare payments receive the higher payment to which they are entitled. This has been a cause of particular concern to people in receipt of a social welfare payment when they become carers. As Senators know, budget 2007 provided for a fundamental reform of the social welfare system for carers in this regard. Under the new arrangements, which came into effect in September 2007, people in receipt of certain social welfare payments other than carer's allowance or benefit who are providing others 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.

These new arrangements apply to almost all weekly social welfare payments and to people in receipt of qualified adult allowances. The beneficiaries are people currently in receipt of carer's allowance who may have an underlying eligibility for another social welfare payment, such as a contributory State pension, and people currently in receipt of other social welfare payments who are also providing full-time care and attention. These may now qualify for an additional payment. To date, almost 7,000 additional carers have benefited from these new arrangements.

One of the Government's key commitments is to the development of a national carers' strategy. This strategy will focus on supporting informal and family carers in the community. While social welfare supports for carers will clearly be a key aspect of the strategy, other issues, such as access to respite care and other services, education, training and employment, will also feature strongly. Co-operation between relevant Departments and agencies is essential if the provision of services, supports and entitlements for carers is to be fully addressed. For this reason, all relevant Departments and agencies are involved in the strategy and there will be appropriate consultation with the social partners. An interdepartmental working group has been established to draw up the strategy. The group is chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, with the secretariat provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, and includes officials from the Departments of Finance, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and Health and Children as well as the HSE and FÁS. The expertise of other Departments and agencies will be called on as required. It is expected that the strategy will be completed by mid-year.

The recent improvements in the income supports available from the Department, together with the improvements in home care and related services provided by the Minister for Health and Children in recent budgets, represent a further realisation of our vision of a co-ordinated approach to services and supports for carers in the community. The development of a national carers' strategy provides us with an opportunity to build further on these improvements and to consider other areas in which progress can be made.

I wish to clarify the position on young carers, which was raised during the earlier debate on this Bill in the Dáil. Towards 2016 commits the Government to carrying out a study of children who have undertaken inappropriate care roles in order to establish the extent of the problem and the impact on the lives of the children concerned. The agreement also states, "Based on the outcome of this study and an analysis of the issues identified, a programme of in-home supports will be developed to alleviate specific problem areas identified for children". The Office of the Minister of State with responsibility for children intends to commission such a study this year, following consultation with the relevant Departments and agencies. Although my Department does not have the lead role in this study, my officials will be involved as appropriate.

The transfer of the administration of blind welfare allowance and domiciliary care allowance to the Department of Social and Family Affairs will be of benefit to both the HSE and the Department. The transfer will allow the HSE to concentrate on its core health functions and, in particular, on other aspects of its reform programme. From my Department's point of view, the transfer will provide opportunities for enhanced customer service and more effective and co-ordinated administration of income support payments. The Bill provides a framework for eligibility and a set of clear and detailed guidelines which will apply to the administration of domiciliary care allowance and blind welfare allowance. Accordingly, mainstream income support eligibility and assessment criteria will be applied. Most recipients of domiciliary care allowance and blind welfare allowance are also in receipt of child benefit or another social welfare payment and are therefore already customers of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The transfer will make it easier for my Department to increase awareness of its services and give information on access and entitlements to all its payments. The transfer will in effect mean that a person's income needs will be dealt with in one Department.

It has been decided that both payments will transfer on an as-is basis in the first instance. This is to ensure that the transfer runs as smoothly as possible and without any disruption in service to recipients. This approach will also ensure that any necessary linkages between income support and health systems are preserved. The transfer will be achieved with appropriate adjustments in manpower in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the health sector, and will be neutral in terms of Exchequer funds and staff numbers. The Bill proposes to remove the existing means test for domiciliary care allowance, which is applied solely to the income of the child. I did not feel it was appropriate to include this part of the existing scheme in the proposed legislation. On transfer of domiciliary care allowance this means test will no longer be applied. The transfer of these payments within mainstream income support legislation is an appropriate development and will provide a more streamlined, consistent, and efficient customer-oriented service to recipients of domiciliary care allowance and blind welfare allowance.

The House will be aware that the Green Paper on Pensions was launched in October 2007 following an intensive review of the pension system by several Departments and the Pensions Board. Publication of the Green Paper was a Towards 2016 commitment. The document comprehensively addresses issues relating to social welfare and supplementary pensions in Ireland. The Green Paper does not recommend any particular course of action but rather sets out the challenges facing our pension system now and in the future. It clearly sets out the current situation and the implications, from an economic and social perspective, of various suggested courses of action.

Views are being sought on the issues raised in the Green Paper through a consultation process which has been taking place since its publication. This process is being facilitated through the website www.pensionsgreenpaper.ie, where people can make submissions and express their views on the important issues raised in the Green Paper. It also provides information on the Green Paper and on events relevant to the consultation process. I am happy to inform Senators that approximately 80 submissions have been made through the website to date. Interested parties can also make submissions directly to my Department and I encourage all Senators to use this consultation process as an opportunity to express their views on this important matter.

The Department also organised a number of regional seminars during the last week of February and the first week of March, the first of which took place last week in Dublin. Further seminars took place in Waterford on Monday and in Cork yesterday, and today there is a seminar in Tullamore. The final regional seminar will take place tomorrow in Sligo. These seminars will be followed by a major conference in Dublin in May. This extensive consultation process will ensure that all those who wish to contribute to the debate are given an opportunity to do so. The consultation process will provide an important and valued contribution to the development of a framework for comprehensively addressing the issue of pensions over the longer term. The Government plans to have completed this framework by the end of 2008.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill, which includes new measures and amends the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, the Pensions Act 1990, and a small number of other Acts. Sections 1 and 2 provide for the Short Title, construction, collective citation and commencement of the Bill and contain definitions of certain terms as they apply throughout the Bill.

Section 3 provides for an increase of €6 in the lower monthly rate of child benefit and €8 in the higher rate, bringing them respectively to €166 and €203 per month. The increase in child benefit will be effective from April 2008. Families who receive the monthly payment via their bank accounts will receive the budget increase from April 2008, while those who receive payment via personalised payable order books encashable at post offices will be paid, as has been the case in previous years, in the first week in May 2008, backdated to April 2008.

Section 4 provides for an increase of €100 in the annual rate of early child care supplement, bringing the annual rate to €1,100 and the quarterly rate to €275. The increases will apply from the first quarter of 2008.

Section 5 provides for the implementation of Council regulation 259/68 to allow an official employed in a European Communities institution to transfer the actuarial value of their pension rights from the social insurance fund into the pension scheme of the European Communities institution, PSEC, and for the transfer of the actuarial value of their pension from the PSEC to the national system. Currently a person employed by an EC institution is not covered by the protection that normally applies to EU citizens under EU regulation 1408/71 which ensures that other member states take account of PRSI contributions paid in Ireland. This section makes provision to enable the transfer of any such contributions from the social insurance fund to the PSEC. It also provides for the transfer of contributions from the PSEC to the social insurance fund.

Section 6 provides that a person transferring back to illness benefit from invalidity pension will be entitled to a full personal rate of illness benefit where they have the required number of contributions in the relevant tax year. Section 7 provides that a person moving from disability allowance to the non-contributory State pension at age 66 will not receive a lower rate of payment owing to a less favourable capital disregard on the non-contributory State pension scheme.

Section 8 raises the earnings limit for receipt of one-parent family payment to €425, as announced in the budget for 2008. It also provides for the income to be assessed in a manner to be prescribed by regulations. These will provide for the disregard of social insurance, health and superannuation contributions and trade union subscriptions for the purposes of assessment of earnings for one-parent family payment. Section 9 increases the respite care grant to €1,700 as announced in the budget for 2008. The increase will apply from 5 June 2008.

Section 10 provides for the deletion of the outdated term "penal servitude". It also provides that a person shall not be considered to be detained in legal custody for the purposes of entitlement to disability allowance when he or she is detained for treatment under an admission order or renewal order made under the Mental Health Act 2001, under section 38 of the Health Act 1947 under sections 4 or 5 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, under section 17 of the Lunacy (Ireland) Act 1821 or under section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, and that these provisions which are beneficial to the individuals affected will be deemed to have come into effect on 1 June 2005.

Section 11 provides that a home maker may include a person who is resident in the State, is a member of the Defence Forces or the spouse of such a member, is a civil servant in the Civil Service of the Government or the State, is in the service outside the State of the Government, the State or an international organisation, or is a volunteer development worker. The section also provides that a deciding officer may decide the question whether a person is to be deemed a home maker at any time.

Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, set out the conditions for entitlement to blind welfare allowance, the rates of payment, the provisions for the calculation of means, the consequential amendments and the transitional provisions to allow for the transfer of the administration of the scheme from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Social and Family Affairs with effect from early 2009.

Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, set out the conditions for eligibility for receipt of domiciliary care allowance, the rates of payment, the consequential amendments and the transitional provisions to allow for the transfer of the administration of the payment of an allowance for the domiciliary care of children from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Social and Family Affairs with effect from early 2009.

Section 18 clarifies the provisions for appeals for supplementary welfare allowance and inserts amended provisions for the administration of the supplementary welfare allowance, including the transitional provisions for the continuation of payments under the supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, scheme as determined by the Health Service Executive on the transfer of the operation of the scheme to the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Section 19 clarifies the late claims provisions for the respite care grant. Section 20 clarifies the provisions concerning the making of regulations relating to payment to persons other than the claimant or beneficiary. Section 21 corrects an omission from the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007. Section 22 amends section 343 of the principal Act by removing the provision that a decision on any question relevant to criminal proceedings shall be conclusive for the purposes of such proceedings and replaces it with a provision that any such decision will be admissible as evidence in such proceedings. Section 23 provides for a technical amendment to correct the text inserted by the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007.

Section 24 provides for the disregard, for the purposes of rent and mortgage interest supplement, of any amount of carer's benefit in excess of the basic rate of supplementary welfare allowance — in line with current arrangements for carer's allowance. It also provides for changes in the rules for the calculation of the income disregard. The legislation is being amended to state that the disregard applies to all income and to clarify that additional income includes earnings, family income supplement and all maintenance.

Section 25 provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007. These changes mainly arise from the recommendations of the report of the Pensions Board to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on trusteeship. The report was published in November 2006. The recommendations in this report are aimed at enhancing both the governance of occupational pension schemes and the protection of the pension rights of scheme members. These changes will facilitate the implementation of recommendations in this report.

Section 26 provides for the definition of the principal Act for the purposes of Part 3. Section 27 proposes to bring registered third party administrators of pension schemes under the remit of the Pensions Act. Third party administrators are currently unregulated for scheme administration work carried out on behalf of the trustees of pension schemes. The Pensions Act is being amended to bring such third party administrators within the remit of the Act and covers certain core functions that they perform on behalf of trustees. Pension scheme administrators will now be required to register with the Pensions Board before they can carry out these core functions and the Pensions Board will have responsibility to audit administration service standards and to remove registration or apply sanctions if required standards are not met.

Section 28 provides for enhancements to the existing provisions for the training of trustees of pension schemes as recommended in the Pensions Board report. While trustees are required at present to disclose in their annual report whether they have access to trustee training, continuous and quality training is not compulsory and research has indicated that ongoing quality training is not the norm. The proposed amendments will put an obligation on employers to arrange trustee training for each individual trustee within six months of his or her appointment and at least every two years thereafter and will put an obligation on trustees to undertake this training.

Section 29 and Schedule 2 provide for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Pensions Act 1990 which are mainly technical in nature.

The Bill provides for a small number of amendments to other Acts as follows: Sections 30 and 31 provide for consequential amendments to the Family Law Act 1995 and the Family Law Divorce Act 1996 to mirror the amendments made above to the Pensions Act 1990 on the matter of the definition of a defined contribution scheme.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to the House and thank him for taking the time to discuss the important matters relating to the Social Welfare Bill 2008.

I welcome the increases in social welfare payments made in the 2008 budget. I am aware that the social welfare package and support services announced in the 2008 budget was €980 million. This money will undoubtedly help to make life easier for families living on social welfare. However, careful budgetary planning and implementation are necessary to ensure that social welfare benefits those most in need. Unfortunately, the Government has failed to provide support for a number of groups in society. Groups such as the working poor, lone parents and carers continue to be neglected by the State. The key issues faced by these important sectors of our community have not been addressed.

The startling fact is that almost one third of all households at risk of poverty today are headed by a person with a job. This has been stated in both Houses on a number of occasions but no effort has been made to eradicate this problem. Consequently, the problems for the so-called working poor have worsened. Every day we hear stories of marginalisation and deprivation in society. We are aware of the social implications of such neglect on our society — rising crime rates, unprovoked violent attacks, a rise in the number of people involved in criminality and gang warfare, sick people unable to afford basic medical care, the acceptance of drug abuse in society and the list can continue.

To tackle the issues of social deprivation we must first address the issue of poverty. CORI has stated that the only way to eradicate poverty is to make tax credits refundable. This would enable people on low pay to benefit from the full value of the tax credits, to which they are entitled. People in this category do not pay income tax or pay related social insurance. Consequently, they are the only people who do not benefit from budget changes. I accept that budget 2008 provided significant resources. I welcome the increases in child income supports but I have serious concerns about the real impact these changes will have in terms of tackling child poverty and of assisting the most disadvantaged in our society. In 2006, according to an EU survey on income and living conditions, 11% of all children under 14 years of age were living in consistent poverty and 20% were at risk of poverty. Effectively, these were children living in families whose income was below 60% of median income.

While there have been increases in the qualified child allowance, child benefit, back to school clothing and footwear allowance and the early child care supplement, the reality is that child income supports for children under six years of age have only increased by €5.69 per week. I ask the Minister to consider how much it costs to feed and clothe a pre-school going child. Sadly child poverty is a harsh reality for many Irish children. I am aware of children who go to bed hungry and cold, without enough fuel or warm changes of clothes and shoes. Although some attempts have been made to combat poverty there is still a long way to go to fully tackle this issue.

I turn now to the issue of rent allowance and rent supplements. The Department of Social and Family Affairs pays rent supplements to persons who rent private accommodation but are unable to afford the cost. These payments are means tested and most recipients depend on welfare payments as their main source of income. Contrary to the intentions of the scheme, rent supplement has become a de facto long-term housing support for the many households who qualify for social housing but who do not have access to it due to inadequate supply. It has been noted by Threshold that the failure to provide sufficient social housing has resulted in many households having no other option but to rely totally on the private rented sector and the inadequate subsidy that rent supplement provides.

Yesterday in my constituency clinic, I met a young girl who works one day a week and who was offered €25 per week rent allowance. She is living at home in her parents' local authority house. She shares the box room with her nine year old son. This is not a suitable situation. She is on the local authority housing list since her child was a baby and there is no prospect of her getting a house because her housing is not deemed overcrowded until her child is ten years of age. There is an inadequate supply of local authority housing. Official figures show that over 43,000 low income families are on local authority housing waiting lists because they cannot afford to buy a house. People in receipt of rent supplement earn little more that the minimum wage and cannot afford to buy a home.

An insignificant rental supplement scheme only serves to put additional pressures on already financially overstretched families, forcing them into poor, rat infested, fire traps that are damp and dirty and sometimes even lack basic necessities such as fridges and ovens. I have seen such deplorable accommodation. The top payment in Dublin for rental supplement is €130 but the rental rates for the cheapest bedsits in Dublin stand at €150 per week. The current system is insufficient because it does not and has not responded to local rental charges and does not reflect the changes in the rental market. I ask the Minister to review rental caps to ensure they reflect real market costs, so the people facing poverty are allowed to live in decent accommodation.

Furthermore, many people, including many of my constituents, find it hard to get decent accommodation because landlords do not accept rent supplements. Landlords are reluctant to accept it because it is paid in arrears rather than in advance, which is the norm for the rental sector. Individuals and families in receipt of the rental supplement are disadvantaged because they cannot pay their deposit and first month's rent up front. Landlords are most likely to accept tenants who can pay up front. In some cases the rent supplement recipients have to wait up to six weeks for their payments and, in other cases, after processing the application the tenant is refused and left in a situation where he or she owes the landlord six weeks' rent. The current rental supplement system is fair neither to the landlord nor the tenant. Are there plans to introduce changes that will allow the rent supplement to be paid in advance rather than in arrears?

The sad reality about homelessness in Ireland today is that there are between 5,000 and 6,000 people currently living on the streets. Occasionally, exceptions to rental caps are made for people who are homeless but in practice this does not happen often. As a result, people who live independently remain homeless and are vulnerable to the dangers of living on the street. The Minister should address the rules governing rental caps to allow more exceptions to be made for the homeless. There must be a review of several aspects of the rental supplement scheme to ensure that it adequately assists the people it is supposed to support. Local authorities are assuming responsibility for the long-term housing needs of people who have been on rent supplement for more than 18 months under the new rental accommodation scheme, RAS, which I welcome. There are a number of pilot programmes under the RAS where people who are homeless are moved from emergency accommodation into longer-term accommodation. One of the main problems with the rental accommodation scheme, however, is that it is extremely slow. A total of 1,000 of 33,000 qualifying recipients have transferred from rent supplement to RAS since September 2005. That is very low.

The Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, spoke in the Seanad on 18 December last year on the Social Welfare Bill. She stated that poverty is likely to be more concentrated in larger families. The new family income thresholds, while substantially increasing all payments, concentrate additional resources on larger families. This improvement continues the refocusing of thresholds towards larger families, thereby further targeting resources at low income households. I welcome the sentiment of the Minister and the concentration of family income support on low income families. However, the Government has failed to encourage lone parents to go back to work. This budget was clearly not welfare-to-work proofed. Part-time workers, for example, stand to lose €2.40 from their family income support payment. The family is recognised as the backbone of society. It is the basic unit in society where children are taught to interact socially.

The national action plan for social inclusion recognises the importance of education for a child's development and future well-being. The current back to school allowance provides children aged between two and 11 years with a €200 allowance. Children aged between 12 and 22 receive €305. This money does not just cover school uniforms; it also covers transport, school lunches, educational trips, school bags and school books. Without adequate funding we are taking a serious risk that those who cannot afford to fund their children's education may simply not send them to school. The small increase promised in the 2008 budget amounts to 39 cent extra per week per child. This does not cover even the cost of a bus fare, which is 60 cent for a schoolchild.

The Government's existing policy on habitual residency means that children who are living in direct provision are not entitled to child benefit, but to a mere €9.60 per week. This issue has been raised many times in this House, the Lower House and at committee level. It is shocking that a First World country would allow discrimination like this to continue. It is not only morally and ethically wrong but is, I believe, illegal. I ask the Minister to change this policy so that all children can be treated the same. In the programme for Government we were promised that the State would eradicate child poverty by 2008 but this date has now been pushed back to 2012.

The Minister mentioned carers and I welcome the study to which he referred, on young carers, commissioned by the Office of the Minister of State with responsibility for children. Regarding the national carer's strategy, I welcome the fact that the Minister has appointed a working group, which he said is due to report mid-year. I ask him to specify when exactly in mid-year the report can be expected. When will the report on young carers be published? Those young people are missing out on education, holidays, social interaction and so forth.

I also welcome the fact that the means test has been removed for domiciliary care and the blind welfare allowances.

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the House. I welcome the increases in social welfare payments, which were also largely welcomed by CORI and Fr. Seán Healy at a recent Oireachtas committee meeting.

I also welcome the fact that many agencies of which I am aware, including the legal aid centre in Coolock, the family mediation centre in Raheny and the Money, Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, centres benefit from the fact that the Minister takes a keen personal interest in their work. I thank him for that. I recently attended a function at which the Minister opened a local call centre in the MABS office in Lombard Street. All of the aforementioned agencies play a very important role in our communities.

I welcome the fact that section 28 deals with the issue of pension fund trustees who need training. Last week I spoke to a trades union official about this issue and he made the point that mistakes have been made by pension fund trustees because they were not up to speed, which cost pension funds dearly, in some cases. I welcome what is a very important provision in the Bill.

Senator McFadden referred to the issues of planning and control, which are very important. One must have control and planning in place or abuse of the system will take place. I am glad something is being done in this regard.

The work of the Department of Social and Family Affairs impacts on nearly every person in the State. The Department administers some 50 different schemes and services, with over 1.5 million people receiving weekly payments. More than 570,000 families receive child benefit for 1.1 million children each month. The Minister has focused on child poverty and on the less well off in our society, including the elderly, which is to be welcomed.

Departmental expenditure in 2007 was €15.3 billion and the projected expenditure in 2008 is €17 billion. With this level of expenditure, I am pleased the Minister and the Department are concerned to ensure that fraudulent and other irregular payments are kept to the minimum. Given the level of expenditure, any incidence of fraud and error, however small, would result in a significant loss to the social welfare insurance fund, from which benefits are paid to the Exchequer and from which social payments are made. The prevention of fraud and abuse of the system is an important part of the day-to-day work of the Department and it is vital that we pay the right person the correct amount of money at the right time. We must ensure that systems and procedures are in place that prevent and minimise the risk of fraud and error at the initial claims stage.

The Department is currently checking the records of thousands of Irish pensioners living abroad, following concerns that welfare payments were made to people who have died. A total of 35,000 recipients of the contributory pension are living outside the State, mainly in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada. These countries do not automatically alert Irish authorities when an Irish citizen dies. The Government's contributory State pension is a social insurance payment made to people aged 66 or over, based on their PRSI contributions. A total of 237,000 are in receipt of the pension, 14% of whom are resident abroad.

I welcome the announcements made by the Minister and his Department regarding a number of control measures which are under way to ensure that errors or irregular payments are kept to a minimum. Officials conducted 345,000 welfare reviews last year, on a regular and targeted basis. Prosecutions are also an important deterrent of social welfare fraud. During 2007, 361 cases were referred to the Chief State Solicitor's office for prosecution, 243 of which were finalised in court. A total of 26 cases of personation were referred by social welfare inspectors to the Garda Síochána in 2007 for follow-up investigation and possible prosecution. These cases included people cashing a payment belonging to another person and people working under another's PPS number. The Department's programme for 2008 provides for some 463,000 reviews to be undertaken, including 123,000 medical reviews.

Non-Irish nationals in receipt of child benefit whose children reside abroad will be required to clarify every three months that they continue to be employed in this country. Other non-Irish nationals will be required to certify twice annually that they or their children continue to reside here. A life certification project will be undertaken on the 14% of recipients of the contributory State pension who reside abroad.

These safeguards must be put in place to ensure that everybody gets a fair share of the cake. We cannot give everybody their fair share if some are falsely receiving payments. Residency checks will be undertaken on non-Irish nationals in receipt of unemployment payments. The habitual residence requirement was first introduced as a qualifying condition for receipt of certain social welfare payments, with effect from 1 May, 2004. It was introduced in the context of the Government's decision to open the Irish labour market to workers from the ten new EU accession states, without the transitional limitations imposed by most of our EU neighbours. It is a very important condition which ensures that abuse is curtailed and minimised.

The habitual residence condition means that persons who have not worked in Ireland or who have little or no connection to this country cannot avail of assistance schemes or child benefit. In particular, a person who has not obtained permission to work here and who does not have the means to be fully self supporting will not satisfy the habitual residence condition. I have heard of cases where people came here for a few weeks at Christmas or at other holiday periods and attempted to claim social welfare benefits. That cannot be tolerated. Anybody who fails to satisfy the habitual residence condition and is suffering financial hardship can apply to the HSE for an exceptional needs payment under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme; such payments are not subject to the habitual residence condition. Non-nationals with no means of support may be assisted by the reception and integration agency to travel back to their own countries.

From 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2007, approximately 16,000 claims relating to complex habitual residency condition, HRC, issues affecting returning Irish emigrants were decided on. Of this, around 1,700 claims, about 10% of the total, were disallowed. There was some evidence of abuse of child benefit allowances for asylum seekers. A person still in the asylum process has not yet received permission to reside in Ireland and, therefore, cannot be considered to be resident. For this reason persons engaged in the asylum seeking process do not qualify for child benefit.

My colleague, Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill, asked me to seek clarification on a situation concerning a person who contacted him and said that on returning from the United States to live in Ireland he could not claim for six months. I do not believe that is the case but perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I seek to share time with Senator Rónán Mullen.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I listened carefully to his speech. I envy him his ability to get to grips with the minutiae of this brief. I find it hard to concentrate on this so I presume he mostly told us the truth.

I wish to raise an issue that I tried to raise in the past year, previous to the Minister becoming the incumbent of his high office. The Minister is a practical man and I do not believe he will disagree with me on this subject, though his answer may be another matter. I am referring to the issue of a spouse employed by a spouse, which will often happen in accountants' offices, veterinary surgeries, dental practices and so on. This issue relates to people who are genuinely working, not those playing the old soldier, and I support any investigations into this that are deemed necessary. I refer to those who work a full day, take holidays when they are entitled to them and make pay-related social insurance, PRSI, contributions.

It appears that in this situation a person pays, has deductions made and makes contributions under class A stamps. The person continues to make these contributions and they are accepted by either the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the Department of Finance. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong because this may have changed in the past month. When these people make early claims for maternity benefit and later claims relating to a contributory old-age pension they are told they are not entitled to do so because stamps accumulated while employed by a spouse are not taken into consideration.

I can see from the Minister's reaction that he has not dealt with this matter before. I know him long enough and well enough to understand that if he makes a commitment to deal with this he will do so. This issue relates to inequality and it is anti-family because it suggests that the smart thing to do before claiming one's pension is to divorce one's partner and then claim the pension. One could then remarry in the future. Perhaps some of this should be dealt with under civil partnership.

I raised this subject as an Adjournment matter with the Minister's predecessor a year ago this week. I was given the impression — I am sure the Minister's advisers will confirm this — that a review was being carried out to identify issues arising from this matter. This topic was raised previously by farming organisations because farmers' wives dealing with book keeping is a growth industry. People working from home may present a different issue but I agree with the thrust of their argument also. I am referring to husbands and wives who work full-time in their spouse's accountancy office, dental surgery or doctor's surgery, receive a salary, keep books properly, make proper deductions and claim a contributory pension. This situation is bad enough but if they were to claim a non-contributory pension the spouse's ordinary income would come into consideration and they probably would not qualify for it.

This issue discourages pension scheme take-up. In The Irish Times yesterday, Fintan O’Toole wrote an article on how few women are covered by pension contributions and the issue I have raised relates to this. I will not be present for the Minister’s reply but I will pay attention to it so I ask him not to let me down by referring to people who may be claiming incorrectly. I am not speaking for those people; I am only referring to cases where the Department is satisfied that a person has done or is doing the job he or she claims to have done. There are issues of equality and fairness in this matter. This is also a family issue because we are trying to encourage people to work from home so this matter should be carefully examined.

In terms of where this issue should go, I studied the law relating to this area and the constitutional position on equality. My colleague, Senator Mullen, could interpret the law better than I, a lay person, in this situation. I referred to The Irish Constitution by J. M. Kelly, a legal bible for the layman, which legal practitioners use as an early textbook but the rest of us still refer to in its various editions after 20 years. Professor Kelly, Mr. Gerard Hogan and others would share the view that this looks like invidious discrimination. While there are a variety of entitlements, one could even accumulate the entitlements of both parties in this situation. I am referring to last year’s figures, prior to the Minister’s huge salary increase.

We did not receive that increase.

However one looks at adult dependant allowances and contributory pensions, these spouses lose out. They have certain entitlements but there are also the issues of personal satisfaction, recognition and identification.

I came here to raise this single matter and I ask the Minister to respond to it. How can this issue be justified? If the Minister feels this situation is wrong I ask him to change it.

I welcome Senator O'Toole's contribution, which raises an interesting issue, and I am also interested in hearing the Minister's response.

The Government's renewed focus in this Bill on removing poverty traps and raising the income levels at which recipients of the lone parent allowance can receive benefits is welcome. In order to tackle poverty, it is vital that the social welfare system removes disincentives to entering the workforce, so raising the income limit from €400 to €425 is a step in the right direction.

The House may remember that in February 2006, the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, made a number of proposals in respect of the lone parent allowance. Among these was an initiative to remove the infamous cohabitation rule, which discouraged lone parents from living with another person. Such a disincentive means that the lone parent of a child is penalised for living with the other parent of the child. Discouraging the two parents of a child from living together can hardly be good social policy. I am on the record in this House as saying that children have better outcomes when raised within a family based on a traditional marriage, an assertion backed by the best social science research over 25 years in the US and UK. This is not a slur on the thousands of other families, including single parent families, many of whom do a heroic job raising children in difficult circumstances. I simply aim to repeat what the evidence tells us. That said, even an arrangement in which the mother and father of a child live together unmarried, where both are in receipt of the lone parent allowance, is better than the situation that still exists, where the presence of the extra parent, usually the father, is actually penalised.

Barnardos, the children's charity, for the past five years has been running an initiative called "the Da project", which engages with the fathers of children who attend their centre in Cherry Orchard, encouraging them to become more involved in their children's lives. At the launch of the evaluation of the project last year, Fergus Finlay, the chief executive of Barnardos, stated that:

Recent research shows that greater engagement of fathers in the care and rearing of their children, particularly in the early and pre-teenage years, can result in many social, educational and psychological benefits for children. These range from better social skills, fewer emotional and behavioural difficulties in adolescence, better school performance and less chance of getting into trouble with the law.

Recent research from Sweden confirms this; children do better on a range of measures when their father is around.

Yet two years after the then Minister, Deputy Brennan, announced plans to make the relevant changes to the social welfare code, the cohabitation rule depriving lone parents who live with another remains in place. I understand that there are some details of the plans proposed by the former Minister which are opposed by lone parent groups, including the proposal that, were the two people in receipt of the proposed new benefit to live together, they would receive not a full payment each but a combined payment which would be the equivalent of 20% of the full amount.

I also appreciate that, in these matters, the devil is very much in the details. Nonetheless, I would ask the Minister to address this issue as a matter of urgency. The philosophy behind the proposed change is positive and we should not let technical details prevent its implementation.

Last week, it was reported that the National Economic and Social Council proposed a measure to tax child credit for wealthier parents and to put a tax on the child benefit of every third and subsequent child. It made this proposal on the basis that it believes the current child benefit system is "hugely inefficient" at tackling poverty, because the same payment is given for every child. That may be the case but the fact that the same amount is allocated to each and every child might suggest that the sole or even main purpose of the benefit is not to tackle poverty, but to assist parents with children, and remove any possibility of discouraging parents from having children.

Quite apart from the unedifying spectacle of the Government discouraging parents from having more than two children, the policy rationale behind taxing the child benefit on each third and subsequent child is, to my mind at least, very cloudy. Ireland faces the prospect of an aging population. The Pensions Board reckon that we have 20 years to prepare for a situation when the percentage of people at retirement age will rise from 10% to 20%. This has serious implications for our current pensions system.

In such a scenario, it hardly makes sense for the Government to encourage parents to have fewer children. I need not dwell on the social realities which already act as burdens on working families; child care costs, long commutes, high mortgages and a tax individualisation system which almost mandates both parents to enter the workplace. I hope the Government does not add to this already bad situation by taking up the NESC's policy proposal in this particular area.

I welcome the passage of the Bill through the House and its prior passage through the Dáil. It is the third item of automatic legislation that stems from budget 2008, the other two being the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill, which takes care of provisions put in place from 1 January onwards. This legislation will deal with future increases in social welfare expenditure from 1 April onwards. It confirms that the Government is meeting its commitments in the programme for Government and under the social partnership programme to those in our society who are living without. I hope these commitments will be met over the lifetime of the Government, including the increase in the State pension to €300 per week. On those grounds the Bill is welcome and is a statement of the Government's intent on striking a balance in the area of social provision and in emphasising the importance of social policy in general.

There are two areas where, of necessity, the Bill is treading on water because of ongoing work. It had been hoped that the national carers' strategy, as indicated in the programme for Government, might have been ready by the end of 2007 and could have helped to inform this Bill. Due to the administrative constraints of a number of Departments involved, that was not possible. While it has been established, it is an ongoing process. There have been a number of meetings of the consultative committee and I am confident that later in the year, in informing the 2009 Bill, we will have those recommendations on which to work.

There is only a small reference to carers, that is, the welcome increase in the respite care grant. Everyone in the House would acknowledge the importance of the national carers' strategy and in ensuring a range of measures will be in place for next year's Bill which will meet an ongoing commitment that most of us in political life have towards carers. It is a commitment that values their work, which is of particular relevance to the Irish situation where the existence of people in the home and the community is an opportunity to offer levels and standards of care that cannot exist in State-funded and State-directed systems found in other countries but which, to date, we have not funded or properly acknowledged. That is one of the issues on which the national carers' strategy will come to a conclusion.

While there are detailed pension provisions in the Bill, much ongoing work is needed. Consultations on the Green Paper on pensions will come to a conclusion in mid-2008. Many of us look forward to that because there are important decisions to be made in regard to the balance between a State provision, the encouragement of private pension provision and whether, as in the past, it should be done through tax mechanisms, or whether there are other ways of encouraging people to have a State pension which is adequate, and may be added to in terms of private pension provision.

I noted with interest the contribution of Senator McFadden who articulated a long-held Green Party position on refundable tax credits. The Commission on Taxation is due to meet and to report by the end of September 2009. That in itself will be another contribution towards important debate in this area.

What we need to do in the whole area of social welfare policy is to get away from talk of the actual amounts of the payments involved and into a more detailed examination of the categorisation of the payments and whether the existence of certain types of payments and their categories are impediments to people progressing in life. Welfare traps exist because of the way in which the welfare system is structured.

It takes a degree of clarity and, that much abused term in political debate, courage, to tackle some of these inconsistencies because to achieve a long-term benefit there might be a short-term disadvantage. I am aware the Minister and his predecessor have tried to deal with the inconsistencies and contradictions that sometimes arise in trying to bring about change, particularly in the area of payments to lone parents. That debate has been well informed and has engaged with representative groups of lone parents.

I am confident that the changes that will eventually come about will recognise the need to acknowledge the income-maintenance needs of families who exist in that situation and the need for people not to be perpetually in situations which become welfare traps. Given that most lone parents are women with children, the balance we need to achieve is that women are given the opportunity to improve themselves through education and to contribute as needs be to the workforce. There is also a balance to be struck in terms of meeting child care needs and the role of a stay-at-home parent or a parent who can stay at home as often as possible. This is the contradiction that most of the studies are trying to bridge.

In regard to the reforms that might come about in the yeas ahead, I give credit to the Department of Social and Family Affairs for the way in which it has improved its customer relations. That is probably not acknowledged enough. Down through the years, in periods of unemployment, I recall visiting unemployment exchanges and trying to account for personal welfare needs. I was struck by the interface that took place, the public relations element and how lacking it was. We have come a huge distance since then in terms of how information is provided to people and how they are dealt with at a more human level, which many of us would admit did not happen in the past. This should be acknowledged.

The type of reforms and balance we need to achieve in terms of customer service is centred on how people access the service. There has been controversy in the past, and this is ongoing with regard to how information technology can be used best to benefit all in our social welfare system, as well as how it might be at times intimidating for older members of our society. While I am not sure if it is an area for which we can legislate, I would like some type of acknowledgement from the Minister and the Department as to how this area is being tackled. If we want to have a welfare system for the 21st century, it must involve our citizens in helping to shape that. In any case, this has yet to happen. We are still dealing theoretically with many of the modern ways of producing a social welfare service. My hope is that this Bill which, as I said, is treading water, will be a small step towards achieving that type of change.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I welcome the Bill and its provisions. The three major areas in social welfare relate to pensions, lone parents and carers and in that regard the Bill could have addressed many of the anomalies that relate to pension entitlements, particularly for women and retired people with integrated pensions, who will have to wait for another year.

I am disappointed no steps have been taken to improve the situation facing lone parents. Decisions need to be made on long-promised reforms of the system of supports for lone parents. Measures that facilitate the return to work for lone parents must not worsen their situation financially. The current system traps lone parents in unemployment or underemployment, which can create a barrier to stable relationships. The rate of poverty for this group is actually rising, as evidenced by recent statistics, and one in three households with consistent poverty were found to be headed by lone parents.

The cohabitation rule is a major issue. It should be abolished to allow genuine reform to take place as it makes no sense from either a social or family perspective to keep people apart. However, as the current rules governing cohabitation would see their welfare payments very significantly reduced, people must take the option of staying apart.

Child care is a huge issue and because it is so expensive it remains out of reach of many lone parents. Adequate affordable child care is a must for this disadvantaged group. Training opportunities are also vital as many are denied opportunities to remain skilled or cannot avail of upskilling or training opportunities for those not previously in the workforce, which is important. Any reforms of the system should allow lone parents to exercise the option of full-time parenting when children are young without suffering socially or financially.

Every public representative could relate umpteen cases of constituents who have problems with regard to returning to work. Two cases that came to my attention and that of my colleagues in recent months illustrate these points well. One was referred to in a letter I received, which stated:

I am a mother of 3, currently receiving lone parents.

Before my breakup, I was a full time employee, working at the highest level of my experience.

In previous years, due to this woman's circumstances, she had been unable to work. Her youngest child was starting school in September and she decided to take the opportunity to try to get back into the workforce. The only entitlements she had been receiving were one-parent family allowance, rental income supplement and she had received medical cards for herself and her children. She received maintenance from her ex-partner, which was declared, and her entitlements had been means-tested and the necessary deductionsmade.

She was successful in receiving a CE scheme through FÁS to work locally. She took up this employment towards the end of June. She was earning a wage but she took up the employment with the understanding from FÁS that CE schemes were structured as a path to reintroduce people back to the workforce while enabling them to keep any entitlements they were receiving. Unfortunately, that was not the case for this woman. Her one-parent family allowance has been reduced by €92.50 per week and her rental income supplement has been slashed so that the payments now provide her with only €276 a month towards her rent, which is €1,200 per month. Before she took up employment, €837 per month was paid towards her rent. As matters stand, when she added up all the deductions and factored in that she must pay for child care while at work, she would be €84.05 per week better off if she was not working.

That intolerable situation is a reality for many. The Minister should have the desire to ensure that people can move from welfare to work. We all know of real-life cases. A second letter states:

I am an unmarried mother of one. I am currently living with my partner who is a stay at home father. I wish to query the governments treatment of unmarried parents in this day and age.

My boyfriend applied for social welfare payment a few years ago before our daughter was born. He was told that due to the fact that he did not have enough contributions the welfare payment he was entitled to would be calculated on a means basis. He provided all relevant details to the official. He was told that because he was living with me and I was working, my income would have to be taken into account when assessing his means. At the end of this process he was told that he was entitled to ... €20 a week. It is shocking that anyone would be expected to live on this amount.

Under the taxation rules I am not entitled to use any of his tax credits as we are not married. In addition to this I am not entitled to claim single parent credits as we are living together. I feel that it is very unfair that we are treated effectively like a married couple for social welfare purposes and as single people for taxation purposes but not single when it comes to claiming single parent credit.

This is an anomaly. These are real stories, not just stories made up to look good in print. I do not want to waste the Minister's valuable time but there are many cases I know of from my clinics which demonstrate this point — I am sure my colleagues know of similar cases. Parents in this situation should live together and should not have to suffer financially or socially. It is difficult to argue with any of the points made in those letters, all of which stand up to scrutiny.

It is not defensible to have a welfare system that penalises lone parents who decide to go out to work and penalises cohabiting couples for living together and rearing their children. The incentives and supports, both in terms of welfare and taxation, would seem to be there for such parents to live apart.

There is an urgent need to reform how the rent supplement scheme works from the points of view of both taxpayers and recipients. There is a major problem with the inadequate exchange of information between the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Revenue Commissioners and the Private Residential Tenancies Board. As well as needing assurances that money paid out by State agencies is subject to tax by those who receive it, we should also have assurances that all landlords are registered with the PRTB.

The way the rent supplement scheme operates has come under criticism from a tax perspective from the Comptroller and Auditor General. We should have amendments calling for rent supplement to be paid directly to the landlord and for landlords to be registered. There is a ludicrous situation where tenants are required to deduct 20% of rent for tax purposes in the case of non-residential landlords. The onus for deducting this tax should be put on the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this generous package of measures, which represents nearly half of all additional Government spending in the budget this year and brings spending on social welfare to nearly €17 billion. That is a long way from where we were ten or 15 years ago. The Government has again underlined its commitment to improving the position of those less well off in our society. The Bill introduces a number of key improvements in the area of social welfare, including increases in child benefit, early child care supplement and the respite care grant.

We are entering a period of below-trend growth in which matters are not as clear as they were a couple of years ago, not just in Ireland but globally. Our first priority has to be to ensure the vulnerable within our society are protected. Budget 2008 provided significant resources to allow us to address the needs of those most disadvantaged and a number of these increases are provided for in this Bill. The approach taken by the Minister in recent years has enabled us as a society to deliver significant improvements for people on low incomes. This continues to be the best way for us to deliver natural social welfare enhancements in a sustainable way. The key to this is sustainability. We must ensure into the future that whatever measures we introduce work for the people who must access our welfare system.

In line with this overall approach, the improvements in social welfare benefits and, in particular, child care payments provided for in the 2008 budget amount to an additional €957 million in 2008 and €980 million in a full year. The Government has increased significantly financial support for children in recent years. It intends to continue to do so by increasing child benefit and the early child care supplement which has been very successful. Section 3 provides for these increases.

The Bill goes some way also towards reforming income support for children to reduce work disincentives by making income support less relevant to the employment status of the parent. This has been a significant issue, especially for lone parents. Welfare increases should not act as a barrier or disincentive to any parent who wishes to take up a chance of employment, training or education. As we are aware, this policy has formed an important part of social partnership agreements. We must maintain the balance between tackling child poverty and encouraging and assisting families to access education, training and employment opportunities.

Supporting lone parents is once again a key priority of this legislation. The increase in the upper earning limits for the one-parent family payment will help those people to access work and training that fits in with their responsibility as parents, which is in the interests of the children as well as the parents. It also offers the best way out of the very difficult position in which people sometimes find themselves. I see this daily at advice centres. I am sure the same is true of Senator Prendergast and others.

I am told that young parents, especially in inner city areas and predominantly though not exclusively women, have difficulty in accessing any kind of training or employment opportunities solely because they would lose the benefits they have gained as part of the support system for lone parents. This is a significant worry for young people who find themselves in that position. The changes made in this legislation will help to tackle this aspect of the matter. For these measures to work, we need co-operation between a number of agencies and Departments. I look forward to the results of the pilot projects under way in Coolock in Dublin and Kilkenny, which were mentioned by the Minister.

Sections 6 and 7 relate to transfers. For many years, particularly in respect of the Department of Social and Family Affairs but also in other Departments, the issue always arose of whether people were getting their entitlements and if they would be entitled to an increase in the event of a change to a different payment. Under section 6, a person transferring back to illness benefit from invalidity pension will be entitled to a full personal rate of illness benefit, assuming he or she has the required number of contributions in the relevant tax year. Section 7 provides that a person moving from disability allowance to a State pension at age 66 will not receive a lower rate of payment. Again, the emphasis is put on providing the maximum amount of payment to which a person is entitled.

There has been much discussion of carers in recent years. The Government has recognised, and continues to recognise, the significant contribution to society made by carers and this is evident in the increase in carer's allowance and carer's benefit. The respite care grant was increased last year from €1,200 to €1,500. Section 9 further increases it by an additional €200 to €1,700, as announced in the budget. This measure will benefit approximately 48,200 carers this summer and underpins our commitment under the partnership agreement, Towards 2016, and the programme for Government.

Simply to have a day off or a one or two-week holiday can make a significant difference to people who care for parents or children. In some cases, this can be a decisive factor at a time when a person has to make a choice to put his or her family member into some kind of supported medical facility or to care for him or her at home. The respite care grant has proven its worth over the years. The changes made last year are welcome but we need to examine the manner in which the respite care grant is administered because there are long waiting lists and difficulties in that regard. In one case I dealt with I was told the person who was entitled to the respite grant would have to go on a waiting list. Some of the Health Service Executive administrative practices need to be examined.

Who created the HSE?

Carers are the unsung heroes. We need to implement our commitment in Towards 2016 as soon as possible because these people very much deserve our help.

The discussion of pensions in recent years has helped to highlight the importance of this area. This legislation deals with a number of issues in respect of pensions in general. Part 3 and sections 26 to 31, inclusive, provide for amendments to the Pensions Act 1990 and some consequential amendments to the Family Law Act 1995 and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. There has been considerable discussion about pensions and their future administration. This is an issue that concerns everyone, not just young people. The last thing on the mind of a young person starting out in his or her career is to start a pension or whether he or she will have one on retirement. As time goes by, people realise the importance of having a pension.

There are changes in the Bill in respect of how pension schemes are administered and who administers them. The proper regulation of trustees and third party administrators is crucial to ensure persons' rights to their pension when they reach that stage of their lives.

Overall, the Bill provides for a number of substantial and very welcome increases in social welfare. I commend the Bill to the House.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill. The budgetary provisions are also welcome but it is important we put them in context.

In many ways the Minister is in a great position in that he has had a tremendous innings in Government with ten years of prosperity. The Government has rightly invested in social welfare. In doing that, however, we have increased the vulnerability of some sections of the population. The Minister will not agree with me but there is a growing divide between different sections of society. We have created a new type of poverty for young families in terms of child care, housing costs and the inability of local authorities to meet affordable housing demands or to provide social housing.

Senator McDonald referred to the Health Service Executive and respite care beds. I tabled a motion on the Adjournment last week on this issue. We cannot keep blaming the HSE. It was set up by Government but it is no longer accountable to anyone. We all have to address this political fault.

The Minister referred to the national carers' strategy. I wish to give every possible enhancement to the role of the carer in society. Carers play a key role in the community, caring for and putting people first, which is something we all should do. They are people centred. I welcome the Minister's decision to devise a national carers' strategy. The report on this matter was due a long time ago. The Minister indicated the report would be available mid-year, which is an ambiguous term. I respect the Minister and I hope we will have the report of the working group on the national carers' strategy because it is important. Many people involved in caring believe they will never see a national carers' strategy. Our party espouses a one-stop-shop approach. I will not go through all the different measures regarding carers but we need to underpin the work they do.

I urge the Minister to discuss a national waiver scheme for people on social welfare who pay a refuse collection charge. In many cases private operators undercut the price for refuse collection charged by local authorities. In five or seven years many local authorities will have privatised the collection of municipal waste. As the Minister is aware, when competition is introduced and the local authority no longer has a role in refuse collection the company with that job can do whatever it wants.

Senator McFadden was correct to state that poverty remains part of society. When one looks around any city or town one sees people who are homeless, begging and living in poor conditions. This is unacceptable. We are a rich society and the divide between rich and poor, which should not exist, is growing. The reality of the budget increases for many citizens is that they are gone before they get them owing to increases in the cost of heating, lighting, groceries etc.

Last week in the Dáil Deputy Olwyn Enright and today Senator Nicky McFadden revealed that one in nine children lives in consistent poverty. We must support our families. We must give the necessary structural support to our young families who travel longer distances, wait longer in traffic, pay inordinate child care costs and are put to the pins of their collars to pay mortgages. One of the best ways to enhance families is through child care and social welfare.

What is the aim of the provision of social welfare? What do we mean to do with it? Is it to support people, enhance their lives or get them out of poverty? I sometimes wonder if it benefits those who need it most. People have become more marginalised. In all our clinics we meet people under pressure who feel they are not being looked after properly. Nowhere is this greater than the private rental sector and, within that, the living conditions of some of our citizens. Last week I visited a bed-sit in Cork city. As I am in Parliament the strongest words I will use to describe it are "absolute squalor". We force people to live in these primitive, inadequate and horrible conditions.

Senator McDonald spoke on interdepartmental connectivity and the need for co-operation, and she is correct. I ask the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the HSE and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to work with the Private Residential Tenancies Board to ensure we have proper, effective regulation and accountability in the private rented sector. Senator Prendergast referred to the level of required payment of rent supplement. We need to have all landlords registered with the PRTB as a matter of course. When people get grants for education in vocational education committees, it is a requirement that their landlords be registered. We must ensure all landlords and tenants are protected.

In many cases rent must be paid in advance while the Department pays rent allowance in arrears. This leaves those in receipt of rent allowance at a disadvantage. They cannot compete on a level playing pitch because landlords will not accept rent in arrears. We must address this fundamental issue. A landlord will always choose a tenant who can pay up front rather than somebody who might struggle to make payments. That puts many tenants, many of them single people and single parents, at an unfair disadvantage. I ask the Minister to examine that. The state of rented accommodation must be examined.

Single men are at a disadvantage in society. I am not being sexist. Young single men are discriminated against by social welfare and local authorities in the provision of housing and are being put into any old hovel. I am sure the Minister can relate to this in his city of Waterford. If not, I hope he comes to Cork to rectify that. I have met two or three young men in my clinics in recent weeks, genuine guys, some of whom are down on their luck and perhaps in trouble with alcohol, who want to make amends in their lives and who live in wholly inadequate bed-sits. We must cater for single men between the ages of 20 and 40 who are being discriminated against and who need to be looked after.

The increases in the 2008 budget will have a minimal impact on poverty and the growing divide. I do not mean this in a political way, although the Minister will take it as a political statement. This Government's legacy will be a growing marginalisation of people in society, which should not occur.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I had not anticipated speaking on this debate but by a curious piece of serendipity this morning I received a letter from an ordinary citizen, not a constituent, and I would like to put it on the record and ask the Minister to examine the queries in it.

Before I do that, I feel myself very lucky in my pension arrangements because I have a pension from Trinity College. I anticipate receiving a pension from the Oireachtas and because I have passed the magical 20 years, I have the maximum. I even managed to extract from the Department information on the stamps I paid before Trinity sold the pass and moved to a different pension scheme and I am entitled to the glorious sum of €114 per month as a result of my stamps. I am very lucky and am grateful for it. However a large number of people in this country have no pensions at all. We need to worry about that. There should be universal, mandatory, properly funded pensions. There is a difficulty because of the age profile but we must examine that.

It would be a good exercise in public information if the Minister could put on the record the social welfare entitlements and take-up of our immigrant and asylum-seeking community. I say this because I think they are modest, but there is a terrible myth that Irish people are being disenfranchised. They are getting more than we are, so to speak, and are receiving all these social welfare perks. It would be a healthy exercise if the facts were made public. I recently dealt with some people from Mosney and the social welfare benefit they get is pretty small. No one is going to have a junket on that. It would be good for Irish people to know the facts. I am not antagonistic to immigrants or asylum seekers. Their state is not luxurious in the manner people think. If there are social welfare fraudsters, they should be intensively investigated because to take money from the income of the poor is one of the meanest frauds.

The letter I received is from a gentleman in County Wicklow. He writes:

Dear Mr. Norris,

I am an ordinary person working for the local authority for the past ten years. We have by law to contribute to the spouses and orphans scheme. A few years back, one of my workmates' wives [I do not think he meant his workmate had a collection of wives; it was not a harem. He means the wife of one of his workmates.] died suddenly and left him to rear three children. It appears that he has to die, not the wife, in order to benefit from the scheme.

That is a real situation that must be examined. If there is an insurance and social welfare benefit, and if we respect the family, which we are everlastingly being told we do in this House and the Constitution, surely when one partner dies and there has been a scheme we should make provision to include some cushioning for the bereaved partner. It was much worse years ago because when my father died, my mother received nothing. If she had died, he would have received a housekeeper allowance. It was crazy. Women were not valued at all.

The man's letter continues:

Also, single people are forced to pay into this scheme. Sir, why? [with a big question mark] Why should single people be forced to pay for someone else's widows and orphans?

I have no problem paying for other people's widows and orphans schemes but one needs to get something back and be able to participate in at least some of the social welfare benefits. If single people do, there is an information task there to let people know.

He goes on to state:

The scheme does not apply to same-sex couples or cohabiting couples. I downloaded the Act and studied it carefully, Sir. It discriminates against all. Unless you are married the State does not recognise partnerships and the children of partnerships cannot benefit from this scheme. Predominantly this scheme was set up to help these very same people.

He said he brought it to his union's attention but received no information from it. We will have to look at this area, although I do not know how accurate it is. Same-sex couples certainly derive no benefit in many cases, something which will have to be examined.

I am sorry to say that the Government — I know it was not the Minister — acted in the most miserable fashion when a case was taken by a same-sex couple against a transport company to derive for the employee's partner those benefits which were given to both married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. The Equality Tribunal found in their favour, but when the case went to the Government, instead of operating to address the injustice and the discrimination, it redefined "spouse" to swindle them out of it.

We had a debate on this issue last week and some speakers said that if we recognised these relationships, there would be tax implications. Of course there would be tax implications, but at the moment people like me find that the State's hand is often in our pocket. We pay taxes and it is not fair to say that we should continue to pay taxes and get nothing back.

I was interested in the case of a man, who does not appear to be gay and certainly does not say it, whose married workmate seems to have suffered discrimination. He puts it into a context which we will have to examine. At the moment, the State is benefiting unjustly from gay people who are statistically higher per capita earners. I do not think that is fair, although I have no problem in paying for the widows and orphans of my colleagues and my fellow citizens. That is what life is about. I believe in the good old communist maxim, “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” That is the way society should be run. I do not mind paying for ten extra people to have their teeth done or their spectacles adjusted and so on, but I want to be the 11th. I do not want to be kept out of the scheme because that makes me feel unequal, even with my three pensions.

I thank Senators from all sides for their contributions to this debate and for the recognition of the improvements in the social welfare system over recent years. There is now an emphasis on those who are less well off and we are targeting children, lone parents and those who clearly are in danger of living in poverty. We use the resources of the State on behalf of the taxpayer to maximise the payments into those areas. That is what I have tried to do in the social welfare package this year, and more than 50% of the allocation on current spending from the budget went into that package.

We will get into the different elements of the Bill tomorrow and many issues raised by Senators will be dealt with specifically. I do not wish to give a short answer to Senator O'Toole, but I will try to look at the issue he raised in a more complete manner. I am not saying what the answer will be, but he will get my full attention to deal with that issue specifically.

We have looked at the child care package this year to target children in families that are in danger of being in poverty. More than €190 million is being assigned to this, with money going directly into the monthly child benefit payment and the qualified child increase of €2 for what was the child dependant allowance. The family income supplement is a very imaginative way of ensuring people who go back to work are not disadvantaged but have their payments enhanced. The children in those families will gain from this, which is an important element. The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance benefits 180,000 children. We are getting to the point where the maximum number of children will benefit from that allowance. We also increased the early child care supplement to €1,100 per child per annum. There is clearly a direct correlation between what we have attempted to do in recent years, perhaps with fewer resources this year, and targeting those in need.

As long as I am in this Department, I intend to maximise these resources for those in danger of poverty rather than using universal payments to resolve everything. Some of the changes in recent years have demonstrated that where resources are used in a targeted way, the maximum benefits can be obtained by those families.

Ireland is quite generous in its contributions to child supports. Let us say there are three children in a family who are entitled to all the income supports, one of whom is under six, another between six and 12 while the third is over 12. The child payment to that family is now more than €12,000 per annum. That is a significant amount of money and I am only referring to the portion that goes to the income support per child. That equates to an income support of more than €77 per week per child, on top of entitlements the parents may have in other income supports. Twelve thousand euro to such a family is not inconsiderable and would probably rank among the best in Europe.

Let us take another example of a family with four children, one of whom is under six, two of whom are between six and 12 and the fourth is over 12. That is not uncommon, particularly in the families whom we are trying to target. The direct cash payment from the State to such a family is €15,949 per annum, which equates to around €76.68 per week per child. These are just the targeted resources relating to the children in those families. The attempt of the State on behalf of all taxpayers is not inconsiderable in its socioeconomic impact. Using these resources in a targeted way delivers directly to many of these families.

The rent supplement allowance was referred to and there was much debate on this when we discussed it in the other House. There will be similar debate tomorrow in this House on Committee, Report and Final Stages. This is a support to individuals and the payment does not go to landlords or anyone else. It is an income support to less well-off people at an individual level who need the payment.

I am aware of that.

I was not addressing the Deputy's point specifically.

We are all aware of it.

During the debate on this issue, there was a suggestion that this was a payment to landlords, but it is not. In some cases we make a direct payment to the landlord on behalf of a small number of individuals who request it. That helps the individuals who for different reasons may not be capable of managing the money themselves.

It is true to say it is a short-term support, but in recent years it has become a much longer-term support than was originally intended. Following discussions with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about the rental accommodation scheme, the objective has been to move people from long-term supports to reduce that scheme to what it was intended to be, namely, a short-term benefit to individuals. We can get individuals onto local authority schemes and get them housed in a much better way. That process is under way but it will take time to move such a substantial number of people from the current system to the local authority scheme.

I also indicated I would review the rent allowance scheme, including payments, ceilings and so forth, by mid-2008. This review will indicate to the Department what measures should be taken in this area. This issue will be addressed in tomorrow's debate.

All speakers referred to lone parents and the cohabitation rules, which I am fully committed to abolishing. It is far better for children when both parents are involved in their upbringing. The archaic approach whereby one parent cannot become involved in the upbringing of children without the family losing income is wrong in a modern society. While views on how to change the current system differ among stakeholders, I am determined to arrive at a position by the end of the year, from which this issue will be addressed in legislative and policy terms. The best approach by far to removing the threat of poverty and getting people out of poverty is to get them into part-time or full-time employment.

It is evident from much of the research carried out in this area that many lone parents, particularly younger girls, left school with a poor level of education. For this reason, educational issues must be addressed before many lone parents can re-enter the workforce. Many of them need to engage in training to equip them to enter employment. As Senators noted, the management of child care to facilitate lone parents to return to work must also be addressed. FÁS and the various Departments and local agencies engaged in this area must come together to work out the methodology of addressing the issue of lone parents.

Many speakers referred to the pilot studies in Coolock and Kilkenny which take a holistic approach to facilitating lone parents in returning to work. One of the interesting facts to emerge from the studies, which are almost complete, is that parents who have voluntarily engaged with the system have found it to be non-threatening. The first thing to cross the minds of many people who are invited by the authorities to discuss their position is that they will lose benefits and come under pressure. This is not the approach being taken. We are concerned with the needs of lone parents and their children.

Notwithstanding the need to provide financial supports, facilitating lone parents to return to the workforce improves their sense of self-worth and the coherence and structure of their families. They then believe they have a much more positive role in the community than was the case when they were entirely dependent on State supports. The Department wants to pursue this approach. I intend to ensure the fundamental disagreements and different perspectives that have emerged among some of the stakeholders in areas such as child support and poverty traps are resolved.

Although Senators have raised a number of issues requiring further attention, the debate has been largely positive. I do not deny that improvements and further supports are always necessary to better the lives of individuals and families. I accept the points made by Senator Norris and note the letter he cited. As the Senator will accept, gender equality and equality for people in same sex relationships are important issues for the Government which are being worked through with my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and a number of Oireachtas joint committees.

We cannot do everything overnight but any fair assessment of developments in the past decade would show that in parallel with the focus on our great economic achievements, we have also concentrated on socioeconomic issues and the less well-off. Irrespective of whether one is extremely wealthy, it is in the interests of all citizens to maintain the socioeconomic balance. If economic success produces a disjointed outcome and widens income gaps, everyone loses — not only those at the lower end — because society becomes less coherent and less able to work in a harmonious and successful manner. For this reason, my predecessors and I and officials in the Department have worked hard to ensure substantial increases in the resources available to address this issue.

Fifteen or 20 years ago the work of the Department was focused on unemployment. This year, less than 9% of the Department's budget, which stands at €17 billion, is allocated to measures in the area of unemployment. This demonstrates substantial policy development in the Department and Government recognition of the fundamental need to substantially increase the resources available to the less well-off. Developments in the area of pensions are perhaps the best case in point. Some years ago, when the Government undertook to increase the old age pension payment to €200 per week, doubts were expressed about whether we would achieve this commitment. We have surpassed this target within the timeframe we set. The current target of raising pensions to €300 per week is fundamental and will be achieved. The targeting of resources to children has also delivered clear benefits.

This has been a positive and interesting debate in which all sides have shown general support for developments in the area of social welfare. The Government intends to target and maximise resources to benefit the less well-off who need support to be able to fully participate in society and enhance their lives and those of their children. This legislation will make a positive contribution towards Government objectives. I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 4 March 2008.
Sitting suspended at 4 p.m. and resumed at5 p.m.
Top
Share