Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 2002

Vol. 549 No. 4

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

As I said earlier, I compliment the staff of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs on the way they treat Deputies. Many of the problems in social welfare arise from anomalies that come about because of the different schemes. I compliment the Minister for one thing he has done. During his term of office many of the anomalies that existed were addressed. Many other speakers referred to other little items that need to be addressed. Given the complex nature of work within the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, these anomalies will continue to arise.

The Minister has made some welcome changes in disability benefit. As stated in the Bill's supporting documentation, some people who feel they can return to work and do so, find within a short period that the illness or disability does not allow them to continue to work and unfortunately they must go back on disability benefit. The change made in the Bill allows them to return to the scheme without having to go through a process of qualification again. However, what will happen to the requirement to be on disability benefit for 12 months before qualifying for invalidity benefit and for the free schemes? Is there a link?

Every Deputy who has spoken has mentioned the carer's allowance and the means test. I lend my support to the call for the Government to continue to try to eliminate the means test. No carer should be deprived of the allowance because of the means test. Carers are the unsung heroes of society. I heard Deputy Noel Ahern being critical of the members of the Carers' Association. I do not share his views. They feel they have been left behind in relation to some of the social welfare advancements and have to fight their own battle to try to get political parties to realise the problems, concerns and worries they have and to recognise the work they put in to ensure their loved ones are given a proper and better life. Ultimately the people in receipt of care should be able to have a better way of life and a better opportunity to become involved in their family and community. That is what the carers try to do.

Whereas changes have been made, it would be preferable to remove the means test completely. While one welcomes the respite care grant, one can also see the problems in relation to respite care itself. I have seen many cases where people could financially afford a holiday, but were unable do so because there was no respite place to which their child, brother or sister could go, due to the lack of respite care in the health service. This must be addressed in the short-term. If we can change the situation regarding respite and long-term care, this will release many of the beds that at present are taken up by these unfortunate patients in the general hospital service. Doing that will allow the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to further develop the respite grant scheme. Other Deputies have spoken about families caring for loved ones for 20 or 30 years without ever having a break. Any Member of the House could mention cases where that occurs. We must ensure the people who apply and receive the payment are in a position to benefit from it by ensuring the person being cared for can go to a hospital or nursing home for that respite period.

The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs uses the health boards as agencies for supplying deposit and rent allowance. Lone parents, senior citizens and others in receipt of social welfare have a major problem in getting proper rented accommodation. There is a waste of money in some cases where there is a row between the landlord and the applicant. Is the deposit supplied by the health board ever recouped back into the system to allow some other unfortunate person to get the deposit? In some cases the community welfare officer may suggest these unfortunate people could save up the deposit. It is absolutely impossible for people in this position to get £400 or £500 over a short period. If the overall picture is considered and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs with the Department of Health and Children and the health boards investigate this they will find there is a better way forward and a more even handed way of dealing with the matter so that the unfortunate people who seek these payments will be relieved of many of the worries and concerns they have. I welcome the local community grants which were also mentioned. Many local areas have benefited as a result of such grants. However, the good work which was done in recent years will be wiped out because of the increase in public liability insurance. What will happen to local groups which cater for senior citizens, lone parents, etc.? The people who run such services must now try to organise other functions to pay for the increase in public liability insurance on community halls where these groups work. It will be a major problem in the future if something is not done to alleviate it.

I welcome the development of the education grant scheme, although it will probably not deal with the anomalies I mentioned earlier. One such anomaly is where a person in full-time employment becomes ill and is not able to work. When he or she seeks alternative ways to earn a salary, he or she realises he or she must go through the education system. I know of a case where a 29 year old carpenter, who was ill, wanted to get a third level education grant. However, because he was not on the unemployment register for six months he did not qualify for the grant. I ask the Minister to investigate that. If an illness is verified by the medical profession, the person should be allowed to qualify for the back to education allowance. I do not understand why facilities cannot be provided to enable people to better themselves through the education system. If a person gives up a job because of an illness which is verified by the medical profession, he or she should be allowed to seek alternative employment through the education system.

As regards senior citizens and those, particularly married couples, who have paid social welfare contributions over the years, a dependent who is in receipt of a payment through his or her spouse may have stamps in his or her own right but not enough for an individual payment. I dealt with one case recently where the person was entitled to almost half the payment but because the payment for the dependent spouse was greater, she did not need to apply. One wonders if that person was entitled to the payment and if the payment to her spouse could have been diluted by that amount. In that way the person who made the contributions many years ago and whose money funded the social welfare system could feel they were getting some of their money back. The main income was provided by one person during all the years the couple were married. However, when that person retires, is it possible for the other person to get some of the income created over the years? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that in his reply to the House.

Free travel is of major benefit to senior citizens and it was mentioned numerous times this morning. There is a scheme in Cavan and in other parts of the country where private operators accept the travel pass and recoup the payment from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. That is a great idea, but it should be done on a more widespread basis. The last time I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister on that issue, I was told that nine or ten groups were involved in such a scheme. That number could be increased dramatically to benefit people. In my constituency of Kildare South private transport is provided for people who must travel to Dublin in the mornings for hospital or business appointments because there is not a public bus or ambulance service. A number of buses travel through Athy every morning at 7 o'clock on their way to Dublin. If the scheme was available, the people with free travel passes could benefit from it. It is obvious the Department has facilitated this scheme in other areas. I ask it to publicise it more and to make it available to the travel agents throughout the country. In that way we would create a private transport web to complement the public transport system which is not able to facilitate the people about whom I am speaking.

The Minister listened to the other Members of the House today who spoke about decentralisation. Athy has been designated under the RAPID programme for investment. If the Minister believes that some place in Leinster needs a section of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Athy is the obvious place.

I compliment Deputy Wall on his fair representation of the Bill. His contribution was balanced and it acknowledged what the Minister has done in the area of social welfare in recent years. It is important to do that because I have heard people making comparisons between what this Government did and what was achieved in the past by other Governments. I have heard members of the former rainbow Government saying that not enough has been done. It might be opportune to draw comparisons because the public needs to know the rates of increases given by the rainbow Government and by this Fianna Fáil-led Government.

The rainbow Government increased old age contributory pensions by 9.9%, while this Government increased them by 48.7%. If inflation is taken into account, the Government increased them by 23.9% compared with 4%. The rainbow coalition increased widow's and widower's pension by 10%, while the Fianna Fáil-led Government has increased it by 36.6%. We have increased unemployment benefit and disability benefit by 38.6% whereas the rainbow coalition increased it by 10%. The rainbow coalition increased old age non-contributory pension by 10.7%. We, however, have increased it by 83.3%.

All one need do is talk to elderly people about their lot in life and ask them whether they have really benefited in recent years. To a person they will state this has been one of the most comfortable periods in their lifetimes in terms of the social welfare increases they received. They remember the stark reality of what happened when the rainbow Government was in office. They recall that on one occasion they were given an increase which, at the time, amounted to the price of a box of matches. The reality is that there is a tangible sense of satisfaction abroad. Over two budgets they have been given recognition by a caring Government and increases of the order of 85%.

The rainbow coalition increased long-term unemployment assistance by 10.7%. We have increased it by 36%. Short-term unemployment assistance was increased by 14.6% by the rainbow coalition while we have increased it by 43.1%. The Minister has a remarkable record of achievement. I accept that a greater level of funds have been available to the Government as a result of the success of the Celtic tiger economy. However, it has also maintained the caring attitude that is part and parcel of the Fianna Fáil ethos. When we had the opportunity to spend money on the elderly and social welfare recipients we did so.

I wish to turn to social inclusion measures. In the final budget introduced by the rainbow coalition £273 million was allocated for such measures. It has been stated the current Government has not invested enough in this area. However, those who make such statements are in no position to do so because last year we invested £1.18 billion. In addition, this year a massive £1.2 billion will be invested in social inclusion measures. People can rest assured that measures in budget 2002 go further than any contained in previous social inclusion packages. The £1.2 billion we are allocating is four and a half times greater than the provision made for social inclusion by the previous Government. The scale of the amount of money we are providing is further underlined by the fact that over the three years of Partnership 2000 the rainbow coalition undertook to spend £525 million on social inclusion measures. If one examines the figure set out in budget 2002, one can see that almost two and a half times more is being made available for such measures. I say to the Minister, "Well done". In the election campaign we will be able to highlight the figures and show what standards have been achieved. We will be able to hold our heads high and state we have allocated funding in a fair manner.

The social welfare improvements contained in the budget will cost £850 million in a full year. This equals last year's record for such improvements and stands in stark comparison to the £215 million provided by the rainbow coalition in its last budget. Social welfare expenditure has increased by two thirds since this Fianna Fáil led Government entered office. Under budget 2002, all weekly social welfare increases have been paid with effect from 1 January. There were many calls for this in the past, but it was never done. However, the Government has now taken action and, as a result, increases in social welfare payments will be available five months earlier than was the case when the Government entered office.

All the budgets introduced by the Government were characterised by measures designed to improve, in terms of their pensions, the position of older people in our society. We all value the major contribution our elders made to society and there have been unanimous calls during the years for a recognition of that contribution. I am glad the Government has delivered on the commitment, contained in the Fianna Fáil policy document produced before the last election, to increase old age pensions to at least £100 per week during its term of office. The most recent budget provides for at least a full £10 per week in the full personal rate. This equals the then unprecedented £10 per week increase contained in last year's budget.

I accept that people have selective political memories. However, Members on this side of the House are not likely to allow them to forget that over the three budgets introduced by the rainbow coalition, Deputy Quinn, as Minister for Finance, gave pensioners a total increase of £2.33. The effect of the increases under Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats is that old age contributory pension will now stand at £116 per week. When we entered office it was £62 per week. What we have done, therefore, is no mean achievement. The Government has increased the personal rate of old age pension by close to 50%, which compares to a total increase of 10% over the lifetime of the rainbow coalition. When the increase in the qualified adult payment is included, a contributory old age pensioner couple, both of whom are over the age of 66 years, will now receive £205 per week. This compares to the £133 they received in 1997 when the Government took office. Under the rainbow coalition, increases in old age pensions stood below the rate of inflation. The record increases we have implemented are well ahead of inflation and represent a real improvement in the living standards of older people.

It has been stated the poor have fared worst out of the budget. It is interesting that in the commentaries made about the widening gap between the rich and poor, economists have indicated that the poor fared worst of all in the budgets introduced between 1994 and 1997. It has emerged that the very poorest did best between 1987 to 1994. It is also interesting that Brendan Keenan indicated in a newspaper article that the budget is the fairest on record. It is difficult to reconcile some of the statements made in the CORI document with factual representations of what has happened. People have faired better financially because the Government decided to focus on child benefit and provide significant increases. It has also ensured this benefit is paid directly to parents.

I must admit that I was extremely concerned about the introduction of individualisation in taxation. I was extremely concerned until an increase occurred in the taxation level granted to parents at home. I recall mentioning to the Minister at the time that if we were going to operate individualisation in the taxation system, there would be no option but to extend it to the social welfare system. I am glad the Minister has now indicated quite clearly that individualisation will be part and parcel of social welfare payments. Our society and our family structure are changing. Many mothers, in particular, have not benefited to the extent that should be their right. By introducing individual payments, the Minister is restoring that right.

With regard to the carer's allowance, the outstanding role of carers in society is well known. Many of them who have cared for people on a voluntary basis for years past are now benefiting from the changes which have been made. I welcome the provision in this year's budget to extend the payment to an additional 3,400 carers and that 2,300 carers will receive an increased payment. That is not before its time. Ideally, there should not be a means test. However, in every budget, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs has ensured that the disregards have increased dramatically and long may that continue. We can never value too highly the important role of carers. The increase in the respite care grant is most welcome. The Minister increased it to £507 in the 2001 budget and has increased it further this year. Perhaps more than anybody else, carers need respite. They are under stress, sometimes for up to 18 hours per day, and they need a break. Great credit is due to the Minister for acknowledging this through the increase in the respite care grant. When Fianna Fáil is back in Government after the general election, whether the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is in his present office or not, I know we will continue that approach.

Perhaps Deputy Batt O'Keeffe will get the job.

At my age, I assure Deputy Deenihan that I am just happy to be in this House and to pay my respects to the Minister of the day for the invaluable work he has done on behalf of people on social welfare payments. The Minister also extended the back to education scheme to carers who have ceased their caring responsibilities. That is an excellent scheme for people who may have spent many years caring for their parents and given up a livelihood through love of their parents. The Minister has wisely recognised the gap which may exist in the lives of such people and has provided the opportunity and the facilities for them to go back into education.

I hope my comments on this social welfare Bill have outlined in great detail for the electorate the benefits which this Government has delivered. I hope and believe they will acknowledge the great strides that have been made in terms of keeping payments well ahead of inflation. I congratulate the Minister and urge him to continue the good work. He has been an outstanding success in his Department and those on unemployment and disability payments have reason to be grateful for what has been a very generous hand.

Mr. Coveney

I wish to share time with Deputy Deenihan. It is unfortunate that, in debates like this, so much time is spent comparing the spend of the present Government to that of the previous Government. In many cases, that exercise is a total nonsense because one is not comparing like with like and it is simply petty politics.

The benefits are not petty for those on the receiving end.

Mr. Coveney

I would like to think that opposition politicians are big enough to recognise pro gress in Bills such as this one and that Government politicians would not constantly harp on about comparisons between the spend figures of a previous Government more than five years ago and those of the present day Government, when the amounts of money available are not at all comparable. In relation to the Bill I wish to make some general points, some of which relate directly to it and others relate more loosely. Children are a most vulnerable section of our society. On a positive note, I welcome the child benefit provisions in this Bill and I am glad the Government has adopted an approach that Fine Gael has been promoting for quite some time, that is, to pay lump sums to increase child benefit significantly over successive budgets, through direct child benefit payments. Some progress has been achieved in this area. This Bill ensures that a family with three children will receive €382.50 per month after April and that is welcome on all sides of the House.

Bringing up children is an expensive business, particularly if both parents are encouraged – or forced – to work outside of the family home because of the high cost of their mortgage or because they are faced with a taxation regime that favours a double income family, so that people feel they have to go out to work rather than stay at home to look after children. With regard to child care, the £117 per month that is being provided for child benefit does not go anywhere near paying child care bills for a parent working full time or even part time. They may have to pay up to €150 per week, never mind £117 per month, for child care. As policy makers, we need to look very seriously at how child care can be made more affordable for parents and how we can provide the capital investment to ensure, particularly in areas of disadvantage, that parents have an opportunity to put their children in quality child care facilities. In this regard, Fine Gael has been advocating the possible use of school grants as is done in other countries, such as in Scandinavia, for example, where a community or the local authority, funded by national government, provides child care facilities and the capital lump sums for that. That system would make child care far more affordable and would remove financial barriers which currently prevent many lone parents, in particular, and other parents from working outside the home.

I welcome the recognition, however slight, of the increase in the cost of school clothes and footwear. However, the increase in that area does not match the increase in inflation. I have had approaches from a number of people, during the months of September and October, expressing real concern at the increase in cost of school uniforms and books. I would like to see more support in this area.

Child poverty is still a significant problem and it needs to be tackled. People talk loosely about one in three or one in four children being brought up in poverty and I often question where they get the facts to back up those statements but there seems to be great concern that there is far too high a percentage of children growing up and living in poverty. This in turn leads to all sorts of other problems when these children reach their teenage years.

Unfortunately, one of the great challenges we face is to try and deal with the problems of drug and alcohol addiction. Since I have a responsibility for the drugs area in my party, I will remind people of the stark facts. Alcohol consumption among all ages continues to be among the highest in Europe. The number of young people involved in under age drinking is higher than anywhere else in Europe. We have the highest use of ecstasy in Europe. Some 18% of Irish teenagers are smoking daily, which is the second highest rate in Europe. Ireland has the third highest use of cannabis in Europe, the fourth highest use of stimulants, the fourth highest use of cocaine and the eighth highest use of heroin in Europe – although that is largely confined to Dublin's inner city. I mention that because there is a link between the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the responsibilities of the national drug strategy. Moreover, there is a direct link between poverty and deprivation and drug addiction, particularly in the case of heroin. There is also a direct link between addiction and issues such as child prostitution, which are areas in which we are not doing enough work to reduce or eliminate the problems.

Some of the problems could be reduced by an increase of emphasis on family and parenting support by providing the type of pro-family policies that Fine Gael is proposing which make strong arguments against the individualisation policies that have been adopted by this Government.

Carers have been treated very poorly by successive Governments and they have been taken for granted in the work they are doing. It is generally accepted that carers have been doing the work of the State for many years while it has been considered a family duty, a duty to a friend or a voluntary practice. However, times are changing and, if we expect people to do the work they are doing as carers and put the number of hours in, we need to offer some financial recognition of that work. To date the pay or financial recognition has been appalling. During the by-election in which I won my seat three and a half years ago, the strongest lobby group of all was the carers. It was my initiation into lobbying but I found myself in agreement with almost everything they said about the amount of money they have been paid.

It is estimated that family carers save the State about €2 billion a year in unpaid work and about 19,000 carers receive carers allowance of some sort from the Department. From a rough estimate of about 100,000 carers in the country, 52,000 are officially recognised by the Department. In a move that the Government seems to view as a generous one, this Bill will increase the income disregard to include an extra 3,200 carers for some form of carer's allowance. This is far too little. Fine Gael proposes to increase the income disregard to twice the minimum wage which would extend the allowance to another 13,000 carers ensuring that almost two thirds of the recognised 52,000 carers would receive recognition of the valuable work they are doing. I welcome the increase in the respite care grant which will go some way to paying for respite care. However we must examine the capital lump sums that are needed to ensure that facilities are provided for.

If we are to introduce tax individualisation from an income tax point of view, we must carry that philosophy into pensions too. It is unacceptable that we tax people within families as individuals yet, when it comes to paying a pension to members of those families, we treat them as a unit – so husbands and wives are not getting the equivalent of two individuals from a pensions point of view. In the areas of homelessness, asylum seekers and lone parents in particular we have much work to do yet.

For the fifth year in a row, this Government has failed to give priority to the deprivation being experienced by our poorest people. While the country has been experiencing its most prosperous period ever, the Government's budgetary choices have created a situation where our poorest people are expected to live on about €118 per week. Its choices have also widened the rich-poor gap by more than €200 per week. This is unjust, unfair and unacceptable. As a direct result of the choices contained in the 2001 budget, the number of people living in relative income poverty will continue to rise, the rich-poor gap will continue to widen, many people in low-paid jobs will gain nothing and families on very low income will not have a right to a medical card.

After this budget, because the increases in the medical card bands did not keep pace with the increases in social welfare payments, a large number of people will be outside the bands and will lose their cards. A large number of people will continue to wait for appropriate accommodation and, despite the unprecedented prosperity of recent years, poverty and social inclusion have not been tackled on anything like the scale that was available through resources.

Tackling poverty effectively is a multi-faceted task. It requires action on many fronts ranging from health care to education and accommodation to employment but the most important requirement is the provision of sufficient income to enable people to live life with dignity. This Government has failed dismally during its term of office to address this issue despite having the best opportunity to do so since the foundation of the State. After five budgets, this Government has produced a situation where Ireland's poorest people are expected to live on about €119 per week. A large number of poor people do not have enough income to provide for basic necessities. The average disposable income of the poorest ten per cent of households is less than £106 per week while the disposable income of the top ten per cent of earners was about €1,300 per week.

A growing number of poor people are on housing waiting lists. Last week there was a debate in the House on the subject of the 50,000 families on the lists. This represents some 150,000 people. In County Kerry there are 2,000 people on the housing waiting lists, whereas a few years ago there were only 500.

The two tier health system ensures poor people must wait at the back of the queue until those who are better off have been provided for first. This situation will continue, even if the recently published health care strategy is implemented. People are dying because they cannot afford to have operations. I have seen people die because they could not receive early treatment for cancer. If they had money, they would still be alive today.

Many employed persons are living in poverty because their incomes are so low. I had hoped the Government would remove the basic income groups from the tax net. It moved in a positive direction, but should have removed them altogether. If we have a divided society, we will have a very restless one, which could make life very uncomfortable for those who currently have a monopoly on almost everything. It is important that we maintain a balance in society.

The 1997 national anti-poverty strategy definition of poverty included those whose income and resources were so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living regarded as acceptable by our society generally. As a result of inadequate income and resources, people may be excluded and marginalised from participating in activities considered the norm for others. I know several young people whose families cannot afford to meet their basic needs in regard to sport, in the sense of paying for coaching, transporting them to sports events and so on. Potentially good athletes are excluded from participation in sport because their parents cannot drive them from County Kerry to the national coaching centre in Limerick. At times I have given assistance out of my own pocket in order that such people can avail of basic coaching facilities. This is happening across the board and we should be mindful of it, irrespective of who is in power.

I listened to Deputy Batt O'Keeffe speak on the Government's record over the past five years which I admit has been good in many areas. We were in a very prosperous period in our history. The money was available and it was a great time to be in government. The only Department which did not have a good time during the lifetime of the Government was the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. In almost every area it was an easy time to be in government as there was plenty of money around. I have a chart showing who benefited most from 1997 to 2002. Those on long-term unemployment payments benefited by some €30 per week. Couples with one earner in the family on long-term unem ployment benefit gained some €55 per week, whereas those on £40,000 plus, which includes all Members, benefited by some €250 per week.

There has been no balance in how the money has been distributed. We are living in a very affluent society where it is common practice for some better-off individuals to have houses in Spain or Portugal. I do not begrudge them this in the least, but when I see the abject poverty in which others are living it makes me question the society we are now building. We are building a society with great potential for unrest. It could be explosive if we do not redress the imbalance. There is still time to do this, but there will have to be a change of policy. As Deputy Noonan stated, we need a new social contract.

The Deputy's party did not increase it by very much in its three years.

Those were different times.

The Deputy is depressed over the polls. His own position is all right, but his party is in trouble.

Mr. Mansergh might give the Minister of State some trouble in County Tipperary.

(Interruptions.)

Please allow Deputy Callely to speak without interruption. Will the Minister of State please refrain from engaging?

My greyhound friend.

Horse more than greyhound.

I am happy to contribute to the debate on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002, which mainly provides for various improvements in payments and some other measures. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on his stewardship of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. He has made real improvements. I hope the Bill will have a speedy and unanimous approval for its passage through the House.

Since 1997 no other EU country has performed as well as Ireland. We are living in a time of excitement and great hope. Ireland's time has truly come. We are building a more prosperous and more progressive country than ever before in our history. While much has been achieved, much more remains to be done. I wish to see our twin-track republican policies continue: sustainable wealth creation and social inclusion. My vision, and that of my party, Fianna Fáil, is of an Ireland in which every person and community can prosper. The Bill reflects our basic philosophy in regard to social inclusion and social potential. We wish to see our country, its people and resources having the potential for further growth and development. That potential must be fully realised creating sustainable wealth and enabling real social inclusion.

Fianna Fáil has a radical commitment to fairness, equity and dignity. We are committed to the elimination of persistent poverty. I challenge anyone to an acid test on this party's record in government in this regard. The Bill gives practical effect to our economic and social philosophy. This Fianna Fáil led Administration has the best understanding of all the political parties of the issues that affect people, especially the less well-off in our society. We have the ability and a greater degree of understanding of all the economic groups in identification of the extent and nature of the relevant issues. Accordingly, our prospects of success in adequately dealing with such issues is greater. That is the reason this Fianna Fáil led Administration has been so successful. We are now well on our way to developing a social welfare structure of which we can all be proud.

We have and wish to continue investing the dividends of our prosperity in the less well-off in our society. As a first step, we have put in place a permanent structure for long-term economic and social planning across all the regions. This Administration has worked hard and well. We will build on the foundations we have put in place. Arising from all the good work and our economic prosperity, social welfare recipients have benefited from the most progressive and generous benefits in the history of the State. In advancing the measures contained in the Bill, and previous Social Welfare Acts, under the leadership of the Minister we have brought social inclusion centre stage. Deputy Ahern has undertaken his duties in a positive and energetic manner as Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs.

I listened with interest to a number of the contributors to this debate so far and welcome the opening remark of Deputy Coveney, someone for whom I have much admiration and respect, but the following speaker from his party, Deputy Deenihan, went down the track that he indicated it would be best not to travel.

I have listened to Deputy Callely extolling the virtue of rich and poor.

I am willing, at Deputy Deenihan's invitation, to travel the same avenue as he.

We must be living in different countries.

It is important to outline some facts. I challenge anybody to an acid test with regard to our record in Government.

The figures are there.

Deputy Deenihan is interrupting—

The Deputy asked for the comments.

—but his and the Labour Party's rhetoric of social justice does not sit easy with their record in Government, particularly during the tenure of the rainbow coalition. I will do two things to facilitate the fair judgment of this, as the call has been made. We will look not just at the £1.90 that the last Administration added to pension payments, we will also look at percentages and real values. If one goes down that avenue, is the level of economic prosperity relevant? One can say that things have changed and times are different, so let us look at both.

A group of people who should be looked after and, I am happy to say, is strongly supported by the party of which I am a member is made up of old age contributory pensioners. They have helped to create the great country we enjoy and many have assisted in the development of the economy. During the term of office of the rainbow government, in which Deputy Deenihan proudly stated he was a Minister of State, the old age contributory pension was increased by 9.9%.

What was the rate of inflation then? What was the cost of a bag of coal?

That Government gave £2.20 as a monetary increase in 1996.

What did the Deputy's party give them when it was in Government the previous year?

Acting Chairman

Deputy Callely without interruption.

We gave them £7 over three years. The Deputy's party took the shilling from the old age pension and that became part of folklore for generations.

Acting Chairman

Can the Minister of State refrain from making comments?

Fianna Fáil is very good at that sort of thing. We are not as good.

For Deputy Deenihan's information, £2.20 was the monetary value of the increase, or 9.9% over the 1995 to 1997 rate.

The Deputy has been supplied with a very good script. He has very good information. The civil servants are working very hard for Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Deenihan asked the question, but when I start to give the answer he interrupts, either because he does not want to hear or he knows that the reply will be embarrassing.

The Deputy invited the comment.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Callely stop inviting responses from across the floor.

That compares with the 48.7% increase provided by this Government.

This Government has had a much greater spending capacity.

That is a real increase.

If the Deputy were to ask anyone, they would tell him they were better off then.

In monetary terms the 2001 increase was £10.

The Deputy asked about real increases over the CPI. From 1995 to 1997 the increase was 4%, while from 1997 to 2002 it was 23.9%. If he wants facts, there are some and I will be happy to supply more.

Widows and widowers should be taken care of. The rainbow government increased widows pension by 10.2%, but this Government has increased it by 36.6%. I could go right through the list—

The Deputy should go to people's doors and talk to them.

—but all I would do is continue to embarrass the Deputy.

The Deputy is not embarrassing anyone. He is inviting comment.

The Deputy tried to twist the facts when I began this line of debate, but I have succeeded in establishing the true state of affairs. It is important to debunk the rhetoric from the Deputy and the Opposition. When they get the opportunity to implement what they spout on about, their record shows that they fail.

The Deputy need only go to the hospitals.

I am particularly pleased this Government's twin-track approach has succeeded in helping to generate tremendous economic prosperity and encouraging foreign investment.

It is impossible to get a bed at Beaumont Hospital.

We encouraged the young, skilled population and motivated them to develop their potential and create the wealth—

It was created only for the few in the top 10%.

—to spread to the less well-off. We have been able to bring social inclusion centre stage. I take this opportunity to cite my admir ation for the energetic manner in which the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has gone about his business. I congratulate the Fianna Fáil-led Administration and our PD partners for successes right across the board.

With regard to section 2, we have seen tremendous increases in child benefit. Given the difficulties regarding how best to bring real financial benefits to parents, the manner in which the Ministers for Finance and Social, Community and Family Affairs have introduced this measure is noteworthy.

The respite care grant is excellent and it gives a much merited break to carers. There are, however, serious problems out there with regard to the availability of respite beds and that arises from the standards and conditions put in place to provide such beds. We depend on the statutory authority to ensure that such beds are available. They are very few at the moment and there is great pressure on them, therefore, while I welcome the grant and the enhancement of it, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs should work closely with the Minister for Health and Children to ensure that there are sufficient beds available. Those who assess the respite care grants should be able to assess the beds in the community. There are particular difficulties in the private sector.

I would like to see the free travel scheme developed. I have described before the frustrations of those who use this fine scheme, which was introduced by Fianna Fáil. It is restrictive and some of those who use the scheme are often required to meet hospital appointments and the like at times outside the hours allowed. Rather than force people to apply for the unrestricted travel pass, which can be made available for certain periods of time, we should make the entire scheme completely unrestricted. When the travel scheme was originally introduced many did not have a motor vehicle available to them. That they were able to travel the country in a motor vehicle to meet family and friends and integrate in society was of tremendous benefit. The times have changed and travel on a bus or train is no longer a great excursion. For a person over 66, travel on an aeroplane is no longer a great excursion either. Many people's family and friends are in the US and in the UK and in other European member states and I would like to see the free travel scheme extended to include air travel.

Following my contact with a number of the airline companies, and, in particular, one of the Irish companies, whose boss might not appreciate me referring to it as a "cheap travel" company but which certainly gives value for money in travel arrangements, I know they are quite keen to assist in a scheme which would allow people entitled to the free travel pass to avail of spare capacity on flights. I am not talking about placing a huge burden on the Exchequer or on the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. I am simply proposing that where there is spare capacity on flights leaving Ireland, people who possess a free travel pass would be able to avail of a percentage of that spare capacity. This all could be done in a pragmatic fashion by an approach being made by the Department and statistics being produced. Where there is spare capacity, a percentage of that spare capacity could be allocated for those possessing a free travel pass. A number of the airline companies are favourably disposed to this. I would ask the Minister to initiate real discussions in this regard. I have done some work on it and I have received very positive feedback. I have briefed the Minister on this.

The other issue in relation to the elderly I want to raise is that unfortunately in some cases older people, who have assisted in putting in place the foundations of this nation and have assisted in producing the prosperity which we now enjoy, must leave their employment. Some of these could be active older persons who would like to continue to participate in the workplace. While I know there is an incentive with regard to reduced PRSI, we should explore putting in place a financial incentive for the older person to continue in the workplace in whatever capacity he or she may desire. At present there is no such financial incentive and at the same time we know there are many businesses which would greatly welcome the wealth of experience which the older person could bring to these places of business.

Many Members of this House will be aware that there are many older persons participating in the workplace, particularly in the businesses of a son or daughter, and for practical reasons these people may or may not be on the books of the company concerned. I would like to see the matter rectified. Such people have a great deal to contribute. It is a simple issue which could be easily rectified. Putting in place a simple financial incentive could greatly correct some of these issues, which are out there in the workplace and which, for practical reasons, are not being accommodated.

These are the two issues to which I want to draw attention – the extension of the free travel pass to air travel and the participation of the older person in the workplace. I can assure the House that I have done a great deal of homework in this regard and I would be happy to assist the Minister and his Department by providing them with the information in my possession. There is tremendous potential in these areas and I would ask that we explore them fully.

I say to anybody listening to or reading this debate "If you agree with the policies of this Fianna Fáil Administration, if you have enjoyed a share of the prosperity over the past five years, if you have enjoyed extra money in your pocket, if you have enjoyed the quality and standard of life over the past five years, in the next number of weeks you will have an opportunity to say so."

What do you do when you have not? Get them out.

I would ask people not to lose this opportunity. We have had tremendous Government. We have enjoyed tremendous prosperity. We have enjoyed a tremendous increase in the quality and standard of life. In the interests of this great country, let us hope that will continue.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Moynihan-Cronin and Sullivan.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill, the purpose of which is to provide for the increases forming part of the social welfare package announced in the budget, particularly the increases in child benefit. I am a constructive person and I heartily support the significant increase in child benefit. I also acknowledged and applauded the increases in this area in particular. The fact that it is a universal payment made directly to families, and particularly to the mother, is extremely important because the mother collects it, disperses it and spends it on matters which are extremely important for the overall benefit, welfare and well-being of the child or children. I welcome that provision and acknowledge its importance.

Deputy Callely gave a eulogy about all the various good provisions in the Bill. I acknowledge those provisions but he omitted one glaring anomaly, that carers of Ireland mean nothing to this Government. That is the simple truth. Let there be no doubt about it, those people are waiting to give their response to this cold-hearted Government which still employs a niggardly means test to deprive people of the allowance.

There is a fanfare because they say that 19,000 of the 220,000 carers are now in receipt of the payment. There is of course no national database. Why is that the case? Is that a purposeful exclusion to ensure that we will not know the true figure to make a comparison? Give or take a few, only 20% of carers qualify for the allowance and of course with the means test they all do not qualify for the full amount. How many of the 19,000 recipients get the full carers allowance following this great triumphal fanfare of the announcement? I want to address this matter which is not specifically dealt with in the Bill. It is regrettable that the financial support this allowance gives to carers is so inadequate as to be shocking.

The carers issue has been ignored by this Government and it is a glaring omission. There has been some debate on this matter in the context of the budget but, as somebody who has championed the cause of carers for a long number of years and who has been deeply involved with them, I was deeply disappointed that there were no amendments to the social welfare code in respect of carers in this Bill. My party colleague, Deputy Broughan, has done a tremendous amount of work in this area and has laid the foundation of significant elements, which, if we were to be part of any future Government, we would see as fundamental prerequisites and requirements to ensure that the issue of the carers allowance would be addressed.

Most of us know that caring is a universal experience and for those caring for people within their own home, it can be a 24 hour job seven days a week. No doubt my colleagues on the Government side recognise that also. I would have personal experience of it through my own family who did not look for anything from the State because they thought it was their duty. However, there are many people who might require that £90 or whatever is the euro equivalent. We owe it to those people to ensure that the allowance is paid out and that the means test is withdrawn once and for all. It is mean and niggardly and I would say the same if my party were in Government. I am not being political. It is time to get rid of it. It is something in which I believe passionately. We cannot call ourselves a caring society if we allow it to continue. I am aware it will cost money but, on a cost-benefit analysis, the carers who care for people in their homes, where they are always happiest, rather than their having to enter an institutional environment create a significant saving for the State by their work. There is also the demographic trend. More of us are getting older and some of us in a few years might be delighted to have someone to care for us. We must also examine that aspect of the predicted demographic shift to an older population in the next few decades.

It is time we had a database of carers and the Department should set about establishing one. It is very important because we need to be in a position to predict what future home carers are needed and what the cost will be. In the absence of that, it is very difficult to formulate policy. The establishment of a national database of carers should be a key requirement of our party if we return to Government. We need the detailed information it would provide on the numbers of carers and their requirements which will be important when it comes to policy formulation and giving support.

It is sad that carers must still fight for what is their right. The restrictive nature of the conditions attaching to the carer's allowance and implicit in the carer's benefit and carer's leave means a significant number of people receive little or no assistance. That will require a fundamental policy change and one I advocate strongly. The means test must also be tackled.

The free travel pass is the first benefit many people receive from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and, in many cases, it goes on the mantelpiece to gather dust. This is especially so in rural areas where there is no public transport of any description. Many Members, including the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, will be familiar with this. Deputy Callely referred to cheap flight operators and I know one of the chief executives lives in the heart of County Westmeath. However, let us begin with ordinary people in the country and get them mobile so that they can get to nursing homes, doctors, solicitors or whatever. For that they need transport.

Our main focus should be combating social isolation and exclusion in rural areas and transport is necessary for this. Reduced mobility compounds social exclusion and denies members of the community opportunities for access to basic services, education, jobs and social interaction. The lack of adequate transport in rural areas especially impacts on older people who, even with travel passes, cannot access transport because it is not near their homes.

The mobility transport needs of the rural population can no longer be filled by traditional transport. We must examine a public rural transport network which will operate to the benefit of those people and that may necessitate reform of the 1932 Transport Act to take account of the current needs of people. We must also examine the establishment of a rural transport authority to carry out a number of policies, such as establishing guidelines for community transport projects and social car schemes to operate without difficulty, creating a simple voucher system to allow local operators to obtain full reimbursement from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs for free travel pass holders, and conducting a review of the free travel pass benefit in the context of the use of multiple modes of transport. That may be the way forward to ensure the free travel pass means what it should to rural people.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. Ministers and Government party members will probably say we are very critical. I am not so just for the sake of it. I welcome increases in social welfare benefits in any Bill passed by the House. I welcome the child benefit increases, but I wish to deal with a few other issues.

Deputy Penrose dealt in detail with the carer's allowance and I will not reiterate what he said. However, I will make a few points about the respite grant for carers which will be issued in June. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs pontificated about how the greatest change that had been made in the previous Social Welfare Bill was that payments were made in January. This is one payment which could have been made in January. We know the value of carers' work and many Members who spoke referred to that.

I met a gentlemen yesterday who was incensed because his wife, who cared for both his invalid parents, applied for the carer's allowance and was refused because his income was too great. He asked why she should suffer because he works every day. He does not have to deal with the difficulties she has 24 hours a day, yet she is penalised because he works. She does the work and the washing and cares for his invalid parents, and she should be recognised for that. I agree with that. If there is one thing the Labour Party could do, it would be to remove the means test from the carer's allowance and that would be the best thing that ever happened in this country.

I raised a matter on the Adjournment two weeks ago about the enhanced subvention for people in nursing homes. I spoke on behalf of single people in nursing homes who have no families or relatives remaining and who are in nursing homes because there is no one to care for them. They cannot afford to be in nursing homes because the subvention they receive does not make up the difference between their pension and the cost of a nursing home bed. If it were not for the kindness and care of the owner, I do not know what would happen to these people. If the people being cared for in the home by their families were in nursing homes or in care, there would be chaos, and the Department does not realise that.

The widowed parent grant was increased to €2,500 which was very welcome. However, it will not deal with the severe pressure experienced by widows, especially young widows. I refer to those with young children who have been widowed suddenly. I know widows in my constituency who have children in third level education and who find it extremely difficult to keep them in college. The maintenance grant does not go far enough towards meeting the cost of digs or keeping, feeding and clothing the children. Such people are struggling to try to educate their children. It is the only thing they can give them. They cannot give them too much money because they do not have it.

The Minister referred to the huge increases he gave pensioners in the budget. However, the plight of young widows has not been addressed and they experience the greatest difficulty in rearing their families. I have dealt with this issue on numerous Social Welfare Acts when I was spokesperson in this area. Young widows with families must be seen in a different light from anyone else. Many of them were accustomed to having a good income. Their late husbands may not have been entitled to a pension from their job and even though the Government promised a pensions Bill to deal with the issue it has not been delivered on. I ask that young widows should not be forgotten as happened in the past.

Section 12 deals with the PRSI number and its use by Departments, which is dangerous. Some safeguards must be put in place in order that personal information cannot be used willy nilly without one's authority.

Everyone who has spoken on the Bill has done so from personal experience of dealing with individuals and the difficult choices they must make as a result of being on very limited incomes. I detected a tone in Deputy Callely's contribution, in particular, that there are deserving poor and not so deserving poor, which I reject.

I want to concentrate on categories who have not done well under the Government as a result of the budget. I am referring to those who still live on very basic incomes on which I do not think anyone in the House would manage to live. These are the people on basic social welfare payments that increased from £85.50 to £93.50, not much more than €100 per week, and on which they are trying to balance household budgets. I am thinking, in particular, of those on disability allowances who already have enough to contend with without having to live on such very basic incomes. It was proposed a number of years ago that payments would be introduced towards the cost of addressing the problems of people with disabilities, including extra costs for clothing, food, special equipment and special transport needs. However, this has not happened. People such as those on disability allowance are left on these basic payments at a time when there is huge wealth in the economy. I have a problem with the complacency of some Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches, particularly Deputy Callely, in addressing these very difficult problems.

My two colleagues referred to carer's allowance. We are talking about those who must make a choice to give up the opportunity to have an income of their own in order to care full time for a loved family member. I do not think any Department can argue that carers should not be paid on the basis that they are giving full-time care and it should not be means tested. This aspect, which should have been changed a long time ago, needs to be changed now. My party has given a commitment that if we are in government following the next general election, it will abolish the means test for carer's allowance. Those who care for family members at home save the State a huge amount of money. They also provide a service which we often lament is missing nowadays in Irish life. Many tasks carried out by families in the past are not being done anymore because of the changes and social pressures on people. We need to facilitate the people concerned to provide care in their own homes if in order to do so, they are willing to give up work, social life and so on.

Other families, including the parents of young children, must also make difficult choices. While the family allowance has been increased, which I welcome, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance has only been increased for children over the age of 12 years, not for younger children, nor has it been increased substantially. My colleague, Deputy Shortall, did a cost analysis last September, before children returned to school, of the actual cost of clothing a child going back to school. She discovered this costs more than twice what they receive under the clothing and footwear allowance. Public representatives on all sides of the House will have constituents coming to them at that time of the year who must sometimes go to moneylenders to be able to afford to send their children back to school. They will not send their children to school without the appropriate clothing, books and so on because they care for them and do not want to embarrass them when they return to school.

These are the types of basic issues with which we should have been able to deal in a time of plenty. It is not a huge amount of money in terms of the budget and income the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is handling. He has spoken about huge sums of money in other areas. Given the decrease in the numbers unemployed, the demands on the social welfare budget are not as high as they might otherwise have been. These issues should have been addressed in that context.

Parents must often make choices about whether to stay at home to look after their children or go out to work. This is about the only country in Europe which does not have paid parental leave. If the parties in government really believe in supporting families and caring roles in families, paid parental leave should have been introduced. I ask that the issue be considered. I am aware we are approaching the end of the life of the Government, but paid parental leave must be on the agenda of whatever Government is in place following the general election.

I add my voice to those who expressed concern about the guidelines for qualifying for a medical card and the dichotomy between those on social welfare payments who would have qualified formerly but do not now qualify. I know directives were issued, but many in that situation have been omitted. This is something which should not have happened because it should have been dealt with in advance.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Kelleher.

The Bill before us brings about the changes announced by the Government in the very important areas of child benefit and carer's allowance, together with a number of other key changes. I would like to make some general comments concerning the Government's commitment since coming to office in July 1997 to helping the less well-off and disadvantaged in our society. I fully recognise the Opposition does not like it when we present the factual evidence of the successes of the Government. However, facts are facts and cannot be denied, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Opposition parties to do so. I suppose that is the reason Opposition parties exist.

Since the Government came to office some 310,000 jobs have been created. Unemployment has decreased to its lowest level since modern statistics first commenced. There has been major reform of the taxation system which ensured more money was put in people's pockets. The Government has delivered real increases in take home pay and more than €4 billion has been returned to workers in personal tax reductions alone. The key beneficiaries of these tax reductions have been lower and middle income earners. Health funding has been doubled by the Government which has brought forward the new health strategy which will cut treatment times and waiting lists, improve accident and emergency services and increase the number of community nursing beds and day places for the elderly.

Government investment in education services has been increased by more than 70% since the Government came to office. No one pays tax on the first €209 earned per week compared to just €97 under the rainbow Government. This has ensured that 68,000 low income earners have been removed from the tax net altogether as a result of the changes announced in last year's budget. The Government has matched its commitment to tax reductions for lower and middle income earners with a commitment towards helping the less well-off and disadvantaged in our society, the core political philosophy of this Administration.

If we are returned to office following the next general election, we will ensure the marginalised and disadvantaged receive more and continued support in terms of the implementation of the Government's social welfare initiatives. We do not wish to build a society of the haves and have nots. The Government has sought to improve the standard of living of the elderly, carers and children and will continue to do so if successful in the next general election. It is difficult to believe that in 1997 the old age pension was just €99. This year it amounts to more than €147. For the second year in a row, there has been a special increase of more than €15 for widows and widowers aged 66 or over in order to progress these rates in line with the level of the old age contributory pension.

Let us consider the specific provisions of the Bill. Section 2 brings the financial commitment of the State for child benefit to €1.44 billion, which is almost three times the financial commitment of the rainbow Government. In 1997, only £397 million was spent on such important payments. As a result of the changes being announced today, the monthly child benefit rate for the first two children is being increased by €31.80 per month, and the monthly rate for the third child and subsequent children is being increased by €38.10 per month. These increases bring the monthly rates to €117.60 and €147.30, respectively. These are sizeable increases by any standard.

In simple terms, what the increases mean for a family with three children is that, after April 2002, they will receive €380.50, which is an increase of 36% on the existing received payments. These substantial payments fulfil the Government's financial commitments as set out in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, which is committed to further increasing these payments in the future.

The level of support this Government gives to child benefit is a clear indication of the importance that it attaches to improving the quality of life and standard of living of families and children. There has been much debate as to what is the best and fairest method to improve State payments for children. Increasing the level of child benefit is the fairest and most equitable option open to the Government, as opposed to dealing with it on a tax-credit basis.

In 1997, the child benefit increase for a family with three children was only £7 per month. By means of the Government's commitment to children and families, a similar family will now receive an increase of €100 on the basis of the payments of this year and last year alone. This Bill brings forward the effective date for the 2002 increase to April next. However, for administrative reasons, the month of May will be the earliest time at which it will be possible to make such child benefit payments to parents.

The Government is also introducing changes for entitlement to child dependant increases payable with short-term social welfare payments, such as disability and unemployment benefits. At present, such increases cease to be payable once a child reaches his or her 18th birthday.

Section 7 provides that, from April next, where the child is receiving a full-time education, those increases will continue to be paid until the following 13 June.

Ever since the Government came to office, it has had a strong commitment to improving the support for carers. In fairness to the previous speakers who have spoken on this topic, I wholeheartedly agree with them – I say that sincerely. As a Fianna Fáil backbencher, I would love to see the day when the means test will be abolished. I mean that sincerely because I have come across very sad cases, as have Deputies from all sides of the House. I know there is a very big sum involved. Be that as it may, I would love to see the means test abolished and I hope that day will come.

I do not want to touch on the debate categorising the different beneficiaries of State payments, but there is no group more worthy of support than carers. Carers play a pivotal role in our society in caring for families, loved ones, friends, neighbours and local community members. It is only right and proper that this Government should continue to make sizeable increases to the level of the carer's benefit and the annual respite care grant.

Although much progress has been made in improving the support being given to carers, this must be viewed as an ongoing process of continued and improving State support. I firmly believe that much credit for the recent increases must go to the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who has done so much in securing increased financial support for carers. As a result of changes introduced over the past five years, the number of carers receiving the carer's allowance and carer's benefit has more than doubled from 9,700 to more than 19,000. Expenditure on these programmes has increased by more than 180%. Disregards have been increased this year from April. From April, a couple can have a joint income disregard of €382. This measure will increase the payment to more than 2,300 carers. It will also ensure that an estimated additional 3,400 carers will qualify for such payments.

Section 3 provides for the further enhancement in the amount of the respite care grant, which has been increased to €635. There has been an increase of €12 for carers in receipt of carer's allowance aged 66 years or over. The carer's benefit now stands at €132.7 per week. In 2000, the Government initiated a study on long-term care funding, both in the private and public sectors, with a view to developing a strategy for future action.

This Government's new health strategy proposes to reform existing arrangements to maximise support for home care. This strategy puts forward a number of other proposals concerning care planning, the greater availability of short-term respite care and the development of primary care services, such as domiciliary care and day-care services. We are committed to improving the role of carers and we will continue to do so if re-elected to Government after the next election. This Government is a caring Government. Its record across a whole range of policy programmes since it came to office speaks for itself. I support the provisions in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002, and I hope all Members of the House will support the important and sizeable social welfare increases.

I thank Deputy Collins for allowing me time. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It gives us an opportunity to nail the lie that has been proffered by the Opposition over many years that this Government is not interested in those who are in most need and that it caters only for those in the higher tax bracket. The facts speak for themselves. The last budget is a testament to our support and efforts to ensure that many people in the lower income bracket get a fair break.

This Government is the one that increased the minimum wage. That was a very profound step in acknowledging the problems that existed in respect of people on low incomes. We now have a minimum wage system in place that guarantees a certain wage to anybody who works the average industrial week. Most of those people are now out of the tax bracket. If one examines recent history, it is fair to say this Government has made huge strides in ensuring that the most needy benefited substantially, be they on low pay or in receipt of social welfare.

Considerable debate has taken place on the subject of child benefit. In the Seanad some years ago, when various reports were published on how to tackle poverty, particularly child poverty, it was felt that the most appropriate way to do so was by way of direct payments in terms of child benefit. I welcome the huge increases in recent years in child benefit. One of the problems in years gone by was that if people talked about employment, they lost entitlements straight away. That discouraged some people from entering the workplace because they would have lost out fin ancially. Now that we have direct child benefit – large child benefit payments – any barriers that may have existed in the past that discouraged people from taking up employment have been reduced.

This year's budget provision for an increase of €31.80 per month in the lower rate of the child benefit, payable in respect of the first two children, and an increase of €38.10 in the higher rate, for the third child and subsequent children, is a recognition that larger families are at more risk of poverty. That is based on the ESRI report of the 1990s. The increases indicate how we addressed an obvious need. It seems that larger families are more susceptible to poverty. People with more children are more susceptible to poverty. Child benefit is the most obvious way of addressing that.

As a Government backbencher, one could spend all day in this Chamber debating the positive aspects of this Government's budget of December and its statutory implementation in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002.

I, like my colleagues, have come across appalling cases with regard to carers. This sector of our society, which has made such a major contribution to the care of people with profound mental handicap and disability, deserves all the support we can give it. The Government has acknowledged this by addressing the issue of the carer's allowance. We would all love to see the removal of the means test for the carer's allowance. In a full year that would cost €168 million. As we acknowledge the burdens placed on families I hope we will strive to ensure carers receive a fair reward for their efforts in caring for people who otherwise would have to be cared for by the State.

The review of the carer's allowance which was published in October 1998 noted that the allowance is an income support and not a payment for caring. The report examined the means test and considered that it should be maintained as a way of targeting resources towards those most in need. However, the introduction of income disregards was also recommended and these were first introduced in August 1999, with a disregard of €95.33 per week applied to the income of a single carer and €190.46 per week to the joint means of a married couple. Budget 2000 made provision for the increase in the disregard to €158.72 for a single person and €317.44 for a couple. The effect of this year's change is to increase income disregards to €191 for a single person and to €382 for a couple, an increase of €32 and €64, respectively. We still have a long way to go and I urge future Governments to address the question of carers as a priority and to ensure all carers are given the supports they deserve.

Respite care is one of the most important services required by carers. Regular planned breaks and emergency cover can assist carers and reduce the stresses on them. A respite care grant of €253.94 was introduced in 1999. In recognition of the importance of respite care for carers this was increased to €380 in budget 2000 and to €507 in budget 2001. In addition, budget 2001 made provision for a double respite care grant for those caring for more than one person. I am sure every Deputy has come across cases of families who care for several people. These people make an enormous contribution and the State owes them not only gratitude but also financial payment.

Difficulties arise in some areas where people who are entitled to free travel may not travel at certain times. These difficulties must be addressed. Many hospital clinics are held early in the morning but an elderly person must wait until a certain time to use his or her bus pass. All citizens, whether paying for a bus ticket or entitled to travel free, should have equal access to public transport.

I found it extraordinary to see Opposition Deputies in my constituency falling over each other in their rush to announce the new social welfare provisions to the electorate. However, they forgot to point out that it was the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government which had implemented these major increases. Some cynics accuse the Government of trying to purchase an election victory, but the track record of the Government shows it to be pro-active in trying to combat poverty, create employment, take people out of the tax net, implement the minimum wage and ensure those who are most vulnerable receive increased payments.

It is a privilege to speak on this Bill. I recall speaking in the Seanad some years ago when we debated an increase of £1.50 in the old age pension. This is an indication of the strides we have made. Deputies have said the number of people who have been taken out of unemployment, by Government policies, have freed up resources for increased payments to people on social welfare. This is happening. Funds are being transferred from people who are in employment to those in receipt of social welfare payments. We are also giving large sums of money back to people in employment, thanks to the Government's tax reductions and increased allowances.

I commend the Bill to the House and I know when I canvass door to door in the weeks ahead these payments will be dear to my heart.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to share my time with Deputy McCormack.

I welcome every increase given in the budget. That is a sine qua non, to repeat an expression I use at the breakfast table every morning.

It is absurd to hear Government backbenchers read scripts prepared by experts.

I hope the Deputy excludes those present.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I certainly exclude the Deputy. There are some people whom I have not heard yet.

Some of the statistics cited would have baffled Garret FitzGerald in his prime. Speakers have made comparisons between today's payments and those of previous years. Deputy Kelleher recalled the time when an increase of £1.50 was given to old age pensioners, but it took a magnificent effort by the Government of the time to grant that increase. We all remember the gospel story of the widow's mite. We have just come through an economic boom when the Government enjoyed a surplus of €2 billion and was able to pay off the national debt. All past Governments were obliged to add to the national debt. The PR people who write these scripts should compare like with like. There is no point saying the Government gave an increase of 180% to social welfare recipients while the previous Government gave only smaller amounts, because we are living in a different world from that of the past.

I also ask the scriptwriters to stop writing about bringing payments back to January of this year. They should begin by saying the trouble started when Deputy Charles Haughey, as Taoiseach, postponed payments to the end of the year. If one follows the logic presented by speaker after speaker on the Government side one must argue that people will lose out next year if the payments are not brought forward even further, to October. A 12 month payment is a 12 month payment, whether it runs from January to January or from April to April. The original payment which was postponed is the one which caused the trouble. There is a gain in the year when the payment is brought forward to January but only in that year. Following the logic of these prepared scripts, the Minister would have to bring payments forward to November or December next year to give the same impression of gain. It means the Minister will have to bring it forward to November or December next year to give the same impression of gain. The amount of rubbish spoken about it is unbelievable, and all of it dreamed up by just one person.

Many speakers have spoken about carers so I will not dwell on the issue. However, last week I received a letter from a person who was refused carer's allowance. She is caring for her mother who has Alzheimer's disease, a heart problem and weighs about five stone. She is so weak that when she fell she damaged her leg and now she is immobilised. The carer is appealing the decision and I have written a letter for her that will not please somebody in the decision making office. This is the type of thing that happens. Deputy Kelleher spoke of the value carers have given. If all the people who care for their elderly parents and relatives decided to stop their work, it would cost the State a fortune to put the cared for people in hospitals. Carers give marvellous value. The difficulty is that some of them who have genuine cases are refused the allowance on technicalities.

I am anxious to discuss the provision for widows, an issue I constantly raise, including during yesterday's Question Time. There is now a two tier system for widows, one for those under 66 years of age and one for those over 66 years. I cannot understand why this is so and neither can the widows under 66 years of age whose husbands paid PRSI under the impression that their spouses would get a widow's pension. I have been paying PRSI for more than 40 years and I was not told that the amount of money my wife would receive would depend on when she became a widow. That is wrong.

In 1935, with the introduction of the principal Act, widows received widow's pension until they reached old age pension age. In 1962 the age limit was removed. In 1998 this two tier system was introduced. It is a contributory pension and if people are elderly they should be declassified as widows and deemed to be old age pensioners. The widows are up in arms over this issue. The Minister told me yesterday that he increased the bereavement grant from £100 to £500, which is excellent, and allocated an additional £2,500 to the widowed parent's grant in the last budget. It was hard to put a question to the Minister because there is nobody better at repeating the mantra of the increases he has made, regardless of what one asks him. I tried but failed to ask him if it is retrospective to all widows under 66 years. It is not; it only applies to people who were widowed in the past year or two.

Many widows are under 66 years of age. Some are in their 20s because, unfortunately, widowhood is not decided by age. People are widowed in their 20s, 30s and 40s and many of them have three or four children. These people are receiving the low rate of widow's pension while widows over 66 years are invariably in a position where their grown children can help them if necessary. In normal circumstances they certainly will not have the expense of looking after dependants. Young widows are doing all the work rearing their children and trying to get them educated but they are being treated as second class citizens. That is unacceptable and I will raise this issue again on Committee Stage. Unfortunately, I will not be able to raise it next year because I will not be here.

I have a query about fostering. When I began teaching in 1957, I met a number of foster parents. They did marvellous work and I pay tribute to them. Some people might think there is money in it but 99% are foster parents out of kindness. They are marvellous people who give homes to orphans and other children. However, there has been a change in the system. I rang the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the fostering, orphanages and adoption sections. Nobody seems to know what is going on. Previously, orphaned children received an orphan's allowance. That had to be spent on them. In one case I was told it had to be saved and accounted for. The €91 orphan's allowance appears to have gone into what seems to be a large increase in the foster care allowance. What is the position? Foster parents in the association are trying to sort it out but the Minister should offer an explanation of the exact situation regarding foster parents and the orphan's allowance.

I could discuss many more elements of the Bill but I will give the rest of my time to Deputy McCormack, who will be here next year to speak on next year's budget.

That is in the hands of the electorate of west Galway. The real test of this Bill and of the budget is whether the gap between the rich and poor is narrowing or widening. Every test I have applied demonstrates that the gap is widening. It has widened over the five budgets this Government has introduced in its term of office.

What did this budget do for people on social welfare? What did it achieve in narrowing the gap between rich and poor? What did it do for people with medical cards? Is entitlement to medical cards easier or more restrictive as a result of this Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill? Is the person with a medical card who wishes to work five or six hours a week, work that will not interfere with their social welfare entitlement, likely to be refused a medical card in future because he or she has the initiative to work for those hours? That is the reality facing people with medical cards.

People on social welfare are on waiting lists for everything. There are 50,000 people on the housing waiting lists throughout the country, 2,000 of them in Galway city and county. What has this Bill done to improve their status? Nothing. The waiting time for housing in Galway city is now five years. The waiting lists for orthodontic treatment have not been reduced in the course of the five budgets introduced by this Government. People waiting for orthodontic treatment cannot afford to have the treatment carried out privately because generally they are on social welfare or on low incomes.

When this Government came into office, the waiting time in the Western Health Board area was 18 months. It is now five years. Is that a record of which the Government should be proud? Has this Bill done anything to address that record? Sadly, no. The same applies to hospital waiting lists – they are as long now as when this Government took office five years ago. That is the real test. This has occurred at a time of unprecedented prosperity and budget surpluses. I do not know what the Government did with the surpluses but, as far as the people on social welfare and on the waiting lists are concerned – they tend to be the same people – they have been squandered.

There is now a waiting list to get on a waiting list. In the Western Health Board area, for example, the consultants—

The Deputy is wandering away from the Bill. I do not mind a passing reference but a debate on hospital waiting lists is not part of the Social Welfare Bill.

I do not believe I am. I might have strayed a little but I am relating this Bill to the problems of people on social welfare—

A passing reference is fine but not a debate on the subject.

—which this Bill was supposed to cure.

Let us get back to the people on social welfare. I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, is present for this debate because I am blue in the face raising an important issue with the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern. I have raised the plight of carers at every opportunity over the past five years and will continue to do so. Most speakers have referred to carers, including Government backbenchers. I searched the entire Bill for references to carers and they are only mentioned in the context of a slight increase in the respite care grant, which I very much welcome.

However, what will be done about the position of a carer who looks after a relative of her husband, who is doubly incontinent and bed ridden 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in their home? Unfortunately, if her husband dies, she qualifies for the widow's pension. Immediately upon qualifying for the widow's pension, despite continuing to care full-time for her dead husband's relative, she loses the carer's allowance. I have asked the Minister to address this issue in every one of the five Social Welfare Bills he has introduced and the five budgets brought forward by the Government, yet my request has been ignored. I have tabled parliamentary questions on the issue and raised it on the Adjournment, at the Committee of Public Accounts and everywhere else I have met officials of the Department. I also made a submission on it to the review group established four or five years ago to address the carer's allowance scheme. However, this is a simple request. There could not be more than 50 or 60 carers who have been widowed and continue as carers. I cannot understand the reason the problem has not been addressed. It is an insult to a carer who is prepared offer his or her services.

Community welfare officers are very insensitive when they interview people for the carer's allowance means test. They have been invited on occasion to go to the room of the person being cared for, but have not got the slightest interest in doing so because the person concerned might be a 90 year old man or woman who is confined to bed. However, they want to know how much money the person who works as a carer earns from cattle sales and so on. They should be much more sensitive to the trauma and difficulty of caring for someone, particularly someone who is bed ridden, because it is a 365 days a year job with the exception of the provision of two weeks' respite care, which is very much welcome.

Many changes could be made and I want the issue to be addressed. The Department should be less restrictive. I do not say abolish the means test because that is an easy way out, but means tests should be more generous and greater allowances should be made because the person who is caring at home in the instance I have outlined does not benefit from a spouse's income. They care for elderly people in their own environment for as long as is physically possible which means they do not require institutional care, which in the long run would cost the State much more than a generous application of the means test for carer's allowance. It would cost the State much less if the means test were abolished entirely because fewer people would have to be placed in institutional care since carers would be recognised for looking after people in their own homes.

I refer to rent allowance, which is not covered by the legislation. I have asked on a number of occasions that the same rules of social behaviour be applied to recipients of rent supplement as apply to those living in local authority housing.

Some rural Members have referred to the free travel scheme. A free travel pass is no good to a pensioner in Letterfrack, Ballyconneely, Carraroe, Lettermullan or Lettermore in my constituency where there is no bus service. There is no possibility of them availing of the free travel scheme. I refer to another anomaly. If a pensioner who has a free travel pass dies and his widow is aged under 65 years, she will be given a free pass, but she could have a neighbour, who has been separated from her husband for years and left her to rear the family struggling on her own, who does not qualify for the free pass. I ask the Minister to address this anomaly in the next Social Welfare Bill, although he will not be in office.

I will be on this side of the House.

We will have a Minister in office. I hope we will have a compassionate Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to introduce the next Social Welfare Bill.

Many Opposition Members have outlined the various measures in the budget and offered the usual criticism of the increases introduced by the Minister. However, I have never seen the publication of as much literature by Opposition Members under the heading "Know Your Rights". The literature provides a list of what has been done by the Government over the past five years, in particular, in the last budget. If the news was not good, none of these leaflets would be printed by the Opposition and if the budget was that bad and the disaster outlined by a number of earlier speakers, no Opposition Member would want to publish the bad news and deliver it to the homes of constituents. However, the opposite is the case. The Government has carried out a radical overhaul of many social welfare payments. Over the past five years there has been a significant change in approach in terms of the benefit provided and the delivery of services.

No other Department has applied changes in information technology and efficiency of service as well as the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Information is easy to access and any Member who has a query regarding a parliamentary question is dealt with immediately and efficiently. The Opposition must acknowledge the people we serve and the officials with whom we must engage for one reason or another in the Department are satisfied that the service is delivered without delay. I commend the Minister and his staff, as I have done on many occasions, for the efficiency of service and the contribution they have made to bringing this Department from a state of inefficiency to where it is today. Many people benefit from that. This needs to be underlined and repeated because without the type of information flow that takes place and without the engagement the Minister has with public representatives and the people, there would not be the respect there is for that Department today.

Unemployment here has fallen dramatically and the numbers of unemployed are minuscule when compared to the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many more people are now employed and considerably less people need to draw unemployment benefit. In spite of the reduction in numbers, the spend in the Department has increased from £4.5 billion in 1997 to £7.4 billion in 2002. The significance of that is that the money is being spent directly on benefit and is benefiting people and families. That must be acknowledged.

The Minister has ensured a good broad spread of the money to take in as many people and families as possible who require support within the remit of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. That speaks volumes because it is an attempt to reach out to those who are less well off and marginalised for one reason or another and find themselves coming to the State for assistance. The measure of the maturity of any state or government is how it treats the less well off in society. While there is always room for improvement and room to increase benefit, all political parties in this House should acknowledge that we are moving in the right direction.

Many people got percentage increases in budgets over the years and sometimes these were considered to be too low. I am pleased that in the past five years the amount of money was increased by the Minister and that it was not just a percentage increase. That has brought about real increases in terms of money in people's pockets over those years.

I have an issue with the appeals system within the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Where a client of the Department needs to appeal a benefit, there is too much bureaucracy involved. It is often said that doctors differ and patients die. General practitioners and consultants may give support to a client making an application to the Department, but the benefit is then turned down and goes into the appeals system which can drag on endlessly. Consultants or doctors on the Department side take issue with what is being said and, in the middle, a family or a person is suffering. While the support is there during the process of the appeal, it can be a stressful time for anyone who is ill.

I appeal to the Minister to review that process and perhaps restructure or approach it in a way that is more customer and user friendly. We should use the reports already available, particularly when they are from general practitioners or consultants and support the applicant's case. I appreciate there has to be an argument because it is an appeals system, but we should be more humane in the way we treat applicants. I ask the Minister to look at the centres that are used throughout the country. We must deal with these appeals in a very professional way and all the documentation from both sides must be considered, but we could be more customer friendly.

There are some problems with the rent allowance scheme and how the local authorities are engaged with it. This issue does not lie directly with the Minister but it comes from his Department. Millions of pounds are being spent by the Department on rent allowance. If the various Departments came together we might find housing schemes or other methods to address the issue rather than simply paying rent allowance. There must be a better way to deal with accommodation problems and the issue requires the involvement of the Department of the Environment and Local Government and perhaps the Department of Health and Children. All those Departments should be brought together to establish greater efficiency in the way money is spent through a more direct resolution to an accommodation problem. When that scheme was started it cost around £5 million, but it now costs several millions of pounds and if this is not addressed, it will spiral out of control. The accommodation problem has not been resolved and that needs to be tackled.

I know the old age contributory pension of £116 or €147.30 compares favourably in absolute terms to 1997 when it was £78. However, more needs to be done for the elderly. Even though the economy is sluggish and we are waiting for things to pick up and move on again, by comparison to the 1980s we still have a booming economy. In many areas we have more favourable numbers than our European neighbours. Our economy is successful. There may be an occasional hiccough, as happens even with a successful business, but we are dealing with those. The elderly laid the foundation for the boom in our economy and made a contribution in darker days. Many of them had a very poor quality of life and we should reflect on the lifestyle of our parents and grandparents if only to remind us that our economy and wealth came from those days and was not solely of our creation.

While we have made great strides and there have been considerable increases under the ministry of Deputy Dermot Ahern, much more needs to be done. Elderly people do not feel secure in their homes today and live in a society that is perhaps indifferent to them. Tenants in local authority housing estates change all the time and the elderly people who remain can often feel vulnerable. I know there is a scheme for security systems and personal panic button alarms, but we must continue to invest in that area.

There is a serious problem with the heating of elderly people's homes in local authority housing schemes. Between the Departments of the Environment and Local Government and Social, Community and Family Affairs, something innovative needs to be done to make funds available to deliver a proper heating system in such homes. It could be prioritised by delivering it to homes where the elderly person is sick or very old. We need to return to elderly people what they gave to our generation during our economic development.

Heating is essential and is being installed in newly constructed houses. However, particularly for elderly people who live in local authority houses, there is a need for the local authority to fund the heating system. The fuel allowance is another issue which needs to be examined and brought up to date.

If there is an argument for interdepartmental co-operation, it is in the area of DPG schemes, the housing aid for the elderly scheme and the essential repairs grant scheme. It is mostly elderly people who look for assistance. One would imagine these people were getting a fortune given the amount of form filling and inspection which takes place. However, they get only a small amount of money to contribute to a project within their homes which will make them warmer, safer or habitable in some cases. An interdepartmental group should ensure that the amount of bureaucracy involved in the delivery of those schemes to the elderly is minimised. That would help the elderly. It is not a huge budgetary matter, but a matter of how we deliver the product from the Departments of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Environment and Local Government to elderly people who need to be looked after. The Departments of the Environment and Local Government, Health and Children and Social, Community and Family Affairs should be brought together to ensure we deliver a more efficient service. The same is true of the medical cards. I agree with extending the medical cards to people over 70 years of age. Perhaps we should reduce the age to 65 and start looking after people in that age bracket.

As regards the carer's allowance, I have heard many backbenchers and people on the Opposition benches asking for the means test to be eliminated. One must go back to the beginning of any benefit scheme to see how we have progressed. We have made great strides since it was introduced in 1990. The carer's allowance has had a positive impact on many families. We cannot thank the carers enough for the job they have undertaken. They have dramatically reduced the costs to the State. Perhaps a point which has been missed is that they have also done a great deal for families. They introduced a value into family life by looking after parents, grandparents or whoever requires care. I know the Minister will remain in office after the next election and I hope he continues the job he has undertaken over the past five years and accelerates the pace of investment in this area. The increases were implemented by the Minister over the past five years. I understand the reason for maintaining a balance in the means test, but we must continue to reach out to people. We must be determined to review the increases in the allowance in future budgets.

We also need to review the annual respite care grant. I welcome the increase from £100 to £400 and the fact that one person can receive a double respite grant of £800, which is built into this year's budget. However, we can improve that. Everyone needs a break from their job. There is nothing more stressful than being a carer. A carer is not only responsible for himself or herself but for the person for whom he or she is caring. Respite is essential for carers because of the amount of work they do. I welcome the efforts being made by the Department in that regard.

As regards child benefit and family support, the work the Department is doing in family resource centres has had a major impact on communities. The grant given to such centres to enable them to organise women's and men's groups and child care has had a positive impact on communities. There are a number of them in County Kilkenny, such as those in Clogh and Newpark Close and the Fr. McGrath centre. Many people feel they are trapped in a cycle of poverty and cannot get out. The family resource centres have broken that cycle. They have made it possible for people to understand there is a way out. The money advice bureaux have been a big help for those who still feel trapped. People are taught in these centres about how to manage money. They are used as local community centres by people who once had nothing to do. The Minister must be commended for that initiative. I hope the Minister will continue to fund that initiative because it has been a wonderful resource for people and it has made a major contribution to their lives.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ring.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

There is no doubt the Government is a master at spin doctoring and plámás. However, no amount of spin doctoring or plámás can hide the fact that it has blown the economy. There was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but, unfortunately, the Government got its hands on it and wasted it to such an extent that it has had to dip into the pension fund to cover its tax in this year's budget.

The people do not believe that.

Some 12 months ago the Tánaiste said the Exchequer was awash with funds and there were so many projects in line, it did not have sufficient staff to deal with them. However, what has happened in the meantime? We can paraphrase the song, "where have all the flowers gone?" by asking, "where has all the money gone, every euro gone"? However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. In ten weeks' time the people will be relieved of their misery when a Fine Gael led Government brings a bright new dawn. We will look after the people on social welfare and those who depend on the State, such as widows, widowers and carers.

The Deputy is not in the London Palladium, but in Leinster House. He should be in the London Palladium.

Deputy Boylan, without interruption.

I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I know the truth hurts, but it is time the Minister started to listen.

The Deputy is making a joke of it.

Unfortunately, the Ministers are not aware of the problems and difficulties faced by the people. They are up in the clouds about their ministerial portfolios. If they are not in helicopters and Mercedes, they are travelling by jet. However, they will come down to earth on 9 May. I want to read a letter into the record of the House because it states all I want to say. I exempt Deputy McGuinness, an excellent backbench Deputy, because of his realistic attitude.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn