Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2003

Vol. 576 No. 5

Social Welfare Bill 2003: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce this legislation, the first two Bills intended to implement the €630 million social welfare package announced last week in budget 2004. This sum represents a €100 million increase on the 2003 package of €530 million and brings the projected level of social welfare expenditure in 2004 to over €11.26 billion, a 7% increase in the allocation for 2003. This level of expenditure is indicative of the Government's priority to protect the living standards of social welfare recipients at a time when difficult decisions have to be made with regard to the management of the public finances. It is a clear demonstration of this Government's commitment to addressing the needs of the elderly, widowed persons, carers, the unemployed and the disadvantaged. It represents year-on-year increases under this Government in social welfare spending. For example, in 2001 the social welfare budget totalled €7.8 billion and in 2004 it will be in excess of €11.26 billion.

I am pleased to have secured an increase in the social welfare budget this year which underlines the Government's commitment to those for whom the support of the State is vital. The budget at my disposal means that for every €3 to be spent by the Government in 2004 almost €1, or almost one third of the total, will go to social welfare recipients. Increases in the past three years have largely been directed at improving rates of payment in line with Government commitments.

What about child benefit?

An estimated 970,000 people are expected to claim weekly social welfare payments next year. Almost two out of every five people in the State – almost 1.5 million people, including dependants – will benefit from such payments.

Not the children.

The increase of €10 in all weekly social welfare payments is well ahead of the rate of inflation. It represents an increase of between 6% and 8%, which in the case of the lowest payments is more than three times the expected rate of inflation of 2.5% in 2004.

Ireland has changed dramatically for the better since the Government took up office. For example, the number of people at work has increased to almost 1.8 million. The rate of unemployment has fallen dramatically from 10% to 4.3%. The number of low paid persons removed from the tax net has increased – 35% of all those on the tax record will pay no tax in 2004. Social welfare spending has increased from €5.74 billion in 1997 to a projected €11.26 billion in 2004.

This is history.

Expenditure has almost doubled. The rate of increase is well in excess of the rate of inflation.

The Minister has the same scriptwriter as her predecessor in the Department.

Payment rates for social welfare recipients and their families have improved considerably in real terms.

The Minister should get a new script.

Substantial improvements in the conditions for entitlement to a range of social welfare schemes and services have been implemented. New social welfare benefits such as farm assist, carer's benefit, widowed parent grant and respite care grant have been introduced and enhanced. The real improvements in social welfare in recent years have led to a significant reduction in the consistent poverty measure. According to the ESRI, the overall level of consistent poverty in 1998 was 8.2%.

What about the Society of St. Vincent de Paul?

This level has been reduced by over one third to 5.2% by 2001, the latest year for which figures are available.

That is not what was said by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

This social welfare package has been assessed in line with the poverty proofing guidelines set out in the national anti-poverty strategy. I am satisfied that the level of spending at my Department's disposal in 2004 will have a meaningful impact on poverty rates by further reducing consistent poverty. The Government is anxious to continue to protect and support the weak and vulnerable in society and to safeguard the progress made in building social inclusion.

This social welfare package aims to increase and maintain the value of all rates of payment in real terms. There will be a minimum increase of €10 in all weekly social welfare payments to that end. The package will provide increases to those aged 66 and over and meet the commitment to increase payments to widowed persons who have attained pension age. The Government is continuing to address the commitments in Sustaining Progress and An Agreed Programme for Government to increase the State pension to €200 by 2007. The real value of all qualified adult rates of payment will increase. We will ensure that they do not fall as a proportion of the associated personal rate. This social welfare package aims to continue to make progress in the Government's programme of increases in the level of child benefit.

The Minister has mentioned child benefit at last.

I wish to outline the main provisions of this Social Welfare Bill.

She must be ashamed.

The Government's commitment to pensioners is reaffirmed in sections 2 and 3 of the Bill. An increase of €10 in the personal rates of old age contributory and non-contributory pensions, as well as retirement and invalidity pensions, is provided for in sections 2 and 3 and in the Schedules to the Bill. This will bring the rate of the old age contributory pension to €167.30 per week and the rate of the old age non-contributory pension to €150 per week. These changes represent a substantial real increase on the basis of the projected annual inflation rate of 2.5% in 2004. Special provision is being made for an increase of €11.50 in the personal rate of widow's or widower's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit for those aged 66 and over. This fulfils the commitment announced in the 2001 budget to increasing the level of these payments to that of the old age contributory pension. The increase of 7.4% on current rates represents a real increase for more than 62,000 widows, widowers and deserted wives on full rates. There will be proportionate increases for 10,600 persons on reduced rates. The increase of €10 for those in receipt of widow's and widower's non-contributory pension will bring the maximum personal weekly rates for such pensioners to €154 for those aged 66 and over and to €134.80 for those aged under 66.

The Government is committed to increasing the level of qualified adult allowance for pensioner spouses in the coming years to the full old age non-contributory pension rate. This will benefit women in the home who do not qualify for the contributory pension in their own right. Section 2 of the Bill provides for increases in social insurance-based payments and for increases in respect of qualified adults. The qualified adult payments applicable to old age contributory and retirement pensions will increase by €7.70 per week, where the qualified adult is aged 66 or over, and by €6.70 per week, where he or she is aged under 66.

That is a large increase.

The combined increases in personal and qualified adult rates will mean that a couple in receipt of full old age contributory pension will receive a substantial increase of €17.70 per week.

It is nearly as good as benchmarking.

Qualified adults aged 66 or over will receive a significant increase of €16.10 per week in invalidity pension. This increase will bring the rate to €129.20 per week. The qualified adult rates for those over 66 in the case of invalidity pension will be brought into line with those paid to qualified adults in the cases of old age contributory and retirement pensions. An increase of €7.10 per week is being provided for qualified adults on invalidity pension who are under 66.

Section 3 of the Bill, which provides for increases in social assistance payments, also contains the rates increases for qualified adults on such payments. An increase of €6.60 is provided for qualified adults of old age non-contributory pension recipients and for qualified adults aged over 66 whose spouses or partners are receiving the blind pension. All other qualified adult rates are being increased by €6.60 per week. Proportionate increases will be applied where persons are in receipt of reduced rate qualified adult allowance payments. As a result of these increases, the qualified adult allowance rate for a person over 66 will rise to over 77% of the old age contributory pension in 2004.

The Government is conscious of the needs of other vulnerable groups in society. I refer in particular to those who are unemployed, disadvantaged or ill, as well as those who provide caring support for the elderly and the ill. Accordingly, a weekly increase of €10 in the personal rates of the relevant payments is being provided. This will bring the standard weekly personal rate of carer's allowance to €139.60. The standard unemployment benefit and assistance and disability benefit will increase to €134.80. The Government is committed to protecting the value of social welfare payments such as one-parent family payment, supplementary welfare allowance and farm assist. General social welfare payments have increased well ahead of inflation since 1997. In this budget, the Government is maintaining the value of these payments ahead of inflation by providing an increase of €10, or 8% per week, in the personal weekly rate.

The social welfare budget increases included in this Bill will be payable from the first pay day in January 2004. People receiving short-term payments such as unemployment payments will receive their increases in the first week in January. Some 160,000 customers who receive long-term payments by means of electronic payment through a post office or a bank will receive their increases on the first pay day in January.

The payable order book is the payment mechanism for 224,000 persons, predominantly those who receive widow's and widower's pensions, one-parent family payment, invalidity pension and carer's allowance. The production of the new order books will entail a minimal delay. The new books will be issued to all customers in mid-February 2004. Such customers will receive a lump sum arrears payment of six weeks in their first payable order of the new book. The weekly increases will be included in the weekly payable orders thereafter.

A further 261,000 customers, mainly recipients of old age and retirement pensions and disability allowance, who also receive payments via the payable order book, will receive their new order books in April. They will receive a special payment in mid-February, however, to minimise inconvenience. This will comprise six weeks' arrears of the budget increase and seven weeks' advance payment. For example, a pensioner couple aged over 66 will receive a lump sum payment of €230.10 in mid-February. The lump sum payment will cover the increases from the first pay day in January and will include an advance of the increase to the book renewal date in April. The increases will be incorporated into the normal weekly payment thereafter.

Section 4 of the Bill provides for an increase of €28 in the weekly income thresholds applied in determining entitlement to family income supplement, expanding the thresholds from €407 in the case of a family with one child, to €584 in the case of a family with eight or more children. That will result in a weekly increase of €16.80, with effect from January 2004, for most eligible families. I have also increased the minimum level of family income supplement payment from €13 to €20 per week to ensure that even those pushing at the edges of the increased thresholds will increase their return from employment.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill provide for changes in PRSI. The earnings ceilings for employees' social insurance contributions and the income ceiling for the payment of optional contributions are being increased by €1,740 from €40,420 to €42,160 per year, with effect from January 2004. Section 7 of the Bill provides for a €200 increase in the widowed parent's grant, bringing it up to €2,700. That increase will be applied with effect from budget day last week.

I have, on previous occasions, referred to my commitment to the prudent management of the social welfare budget. My personal objectives include taking the steps necessary to ensure value for money in the provision of income supports and maximising resources to address poverty and disadvantage. One of the mechanisms used to achieve those objectives is the ongoing review of support systems and schemes administered by my Department. The purpose of such reviews is to ascertain whether individual schemes have attained optimal effectiveness or require adjustment to afford maximum benefit to social welfare customers.

Consequently, the Bill contains several additional measures which provide for amendments to certain social welfare schemes and reform of the social welfare code. Section 8 of the Bill provides for the linking period between unemployment benefit and disability benefit claims to be increased from 13 to 26 weeks. The principal advantage of claim linking for the recipient is that he or she may retain some or all of the entitlements associated with the initial claim, for example, continued entitlement to relevant secondary benefits. That provision is effective from 19 January 2004.

Section 9 provides for an increase, from 39 to 52, in the number of paid social insurance contributions required to satisfy the conditions for entitlement to disability benefit, unemployment benefit and health and safety benefit. That is designed to ensure that entitlement to such benefits reflects a reasonable degree of attachment to the workforce. That measure, which will apply to all new cases with effect from April 2004, will mean that people with fewer than 52 paid contributions from the time of their entry into the workforce will no longer be entitled to those insurance-based schemes. They will, however, be entitled to apply for supplementary welfare allowance or unemployment assistance, as appropriate, the maximum rates of which match disability benefit and unemployment benefit payments.

Section 10 of the Bill provides that, with effect from 19 January 2004, an increase in respect of a qualified child will not be payable where the income of the spouse or partner of a recipient of unemployment benefit, disability benefit, injury benefit or health and safety benefit, exceeds €300 per week.

That is mean. They contributed to it.

Existing claimants, while they remain in continuous receipt of their benefit payment, or those with spouses or partners earning less than €300 weekly, will not be affected by that provision. It is estimated that the majority of claimants affected by the measure will be those whose spouse's or partner's earnings are considerably in excess of €300 per week.

Social welfare will not be paying it out.

That measure will facilitate a refocusing of resources on low-income families.

Section 11 provides for a reduction in the maximum duration of unemployment benefit from 390 days, or 15 months, to 312 days, or one year, where the claimant has fewer than 260, or five years', PRSI contributions. That measure acknowledges a sustained connection with the social insurance fund by ensuring that a substantial and continuous contribution is reflected in the duration of entitlement to benefit.

That is rubbish.

That measure also mirrors the qualifying conditions applicable to disability benefit. The section comes into operation for new claims with effect from 19 January 2004. The purpose of supplementary welfare allowance, or SWA, is to provide a safety net for people unable to provide for their own needs. At present, SWA is not payable to people in full-time employment. That exclusion is set out in social welfare legislation and has been a feature of the scheme since its inception in 1977. In addition to the other qualifying conditions for the scheme, the employment status of the head of the household is a determining factor in establishing entitlement to SWA. In future, if one of a couple is in full-time employment, both will be excluded from claiming rent or mortgage supplement. That measure gives effect to the original intention that SWA should not be paid in cases where there is full-time employment in the household.

The Minister could have left out "measure" and inserted "cutback".

Accordingly, section 12 of the Bill provides that, where one of a couple is in full-time employment, SWA rent or mortgage supplement will not be payable. The measure comes into effect from January 2004. It will also facilitate more appropriate decisions and responses in the assessment of accommodation requirements. Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, provide for a technical amendment to existing legislation which allows for PRSI, health contributions and national training fund levies to be charged on benefits in kind, as announced in last year's budget.

How much will the Minister raise on that?

Over the course of the past year, several spending items have been reviewed and areas of potential savings identified to ensure sound management of public funds. I stress once again that savings found have been recycled back into the total allocation to my Department, which will spend a record €11.26 billion in 2004. I emphasise that any changes to SWA schemes will only affect new applicants. I will shortly sign the regulations giving effect to the changes and make the following points.

Rent supplements were never intended to meet a person's long-term housing needs. The scheme is not a housing programme, but in practice, over the years, has become such. Rent supplement will continue to be available to people with housing needs whose safety or well-being is at risk, such as people with disabilities, the elderly or those experiencing severe social problems.

What about violent households?

The measures will not affect people on local authority waiting lists, even if renting for less than six months, those who are homeless, as defined by the local authority under the Housing Acts, people who have already been tenants for six months, or those currently receiving rent supplements.

Will an exception be made for violent households?

Perhaps the Deputy should wait a moment. Full and sympathetic consideration will be given to the needs of people in implementing the new rent arrangements with the involvement of the housing authorities.

Crèche supplement was designed to provide assistance to parents who, in the absence of such a service, would not otherwise be able to avail of particular supports such as counselling services or addiction treatment programmes. Officials in my Department, which provides that short-term payment, are in discussion with the health boards and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to ensure that appropriate long-term measures are put in place to address crèches which rely on that SWA payment. I emphasise that no crèche will close as a result of the measure.

Similarly, the diet supplement is being restructured to take account of changes in the level of social welfare payments generally. The current basis for calculating the amount of supplement payable in individual cases was put in place in 1996. Since then costings have not been updated, the assessment of means has not been adjusted and, effectively, the amounts paid have not changed. Over time, the gap that the diet supplement was intended to address has narrowed. In future, diet supplements will be based on the current cost of special diets, the current income of claimants and the premise that one should not have to pay more than one third of one's income towards food costs. Existing recipients will continue to receive their current payments until such time as there is a change in circumstances which would warrant a review of entitlement.

This Social Welfare Bill, the first of two instalments—

Is the Minister not going for seven?

—builds further on the progression of social inclusion measures adopted by the Government over the years. It safeguards the living standards of those who rely on social welfare, income and other supports and prioritises the allocation of resources in favour of those most in need.

The Minister's book will not be a bestseller.

I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to a constructive debate, and some banter, I am sure, during our discussions. Molaim an Bille don Teach.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Paul McGrath so that we have 15 minutes each.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will start by citing CORI, as I do every year. This year the slogan is, "A little done, much more to do" and "A long way to go before social exclusion is tackled effectively". The Fianna Fáil slogan was, "A lot done, more to do"—

What was the Deputy's slogan?

—and, of course, "Everybody done". That is what I want to add. The 2004 budget was a missed opportunity to tackle child poverty in Ireland. Child benefit, despite the availability of resources, was increased by less than half of what was required to keep pace with the commitments made in Sustaining Progress. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Government gave a commitment in the 2001 budget that they would implement a three-year programme of increases in child benefit.

The Minister for Finance stated that at the end of this process an additional £1 billion would have been invested directly in our children's well-being and that the child benefit monthly payment would stand at £117.50 and £146, well beyond the PPF commitments. I ask the Minister to come before the Dáil at the first available opportunity to apologise to us for misleading the House in that statement. This promise was broken by the Government. It has not honoured the commitments it made last year or this year. The budget in 2002 promised €25 for the first two children and €30 for the third and subsequent children. However, in the 2003 budget, child benefit increases were just €8 and €10. Beneficiaries were owed €17 and €20 for that year. We expected great things this year but all we received was €6 and €8, which equates to €1.40 per week or 20 cent per day. These increases will do nothing to alleviate child poverty in Ireland.

More than 70,000 householders are living in constant poverty according to the Combat Poverty Agency. This means they are not guaranteed a hot meal every day and do not have basic necessities such as food, clothing and heating. It is hard to believe that, for the ninth year in a row, the Government has not increased the child dependant allowance – it has not been increased since 1994. The three rates of payment of child dependant allowance are €16.80 per week, €19.30 per week and €21.60 per week. The difference between the top rate of €21.60 and the lowest of €16.80 is almost €250 per annum. This is a great deal of money for people who receive social welfare.

Under the Constitution, all children are to be treated equally. Why do we therefore have different rates for different children? Serious expert reports have consistently indicated that the best way in which to end child poverty is through the child dependant allowance. As it has failed to make adequate child benefit, this throws into serious doubt the Government's ability to make good on its commitments to end child poverty and reach the targets established in the national anti-poverty strategy. It demonstrates that the Government is not committed to children or the family in spite of the Minister's allocation of €1 million for celebrations on 15 May 2004 to mark the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family.

This budget is sending out an anti-family message. The Social Welfare Bill 2003 includes a provision where, if a spouse or partner of the claimant for child dependant allowance earns more than €300 per week, the claimant will no longer be entitled to the child dependant allowance. This is another cutback rather than a reform. It effectively gets rid of half of the payments of child dependant allowance to families on low incomes.

I am disappointed that the back to school and clothing and footwear allowances were not increased for 2004. With the increased cost of living and daily price rises, it is disappointing that an opportunity to try to help the less well-off has been missed again by the Minister, particularly when it has become very costly to send children back to school. The Minister could do much more for families by tackling the qualifying income guidelines for this scheme. The guidelines mean that the scheme is being denied to hundreds of families who are badly in need of assistance in order to send their children back to school.

The PRSI changes have also affected the benefits scheme, which I will refer to on Committee Stage. The changes mean we will pay the same rate of PRSI but will get less value for money. The duration for unemployment and disability benefits has been shortened from 15 to 12 months. The number of contributions required for qualification for disability, unemployment, health and safety benefits has been increased from 39 to 52. Entitlement to the half rate child dependant allowance in respect of unemployment and disability benefit claims will be discontinued where the claimant's spouse or partner has a gross weekly income of €300.

The greatest scandal of all is in regard to rent supplement, the conditions for eligibility of which will have a major effect on many people. How can the Minister expect someone in receipt of social welfare to find six months' rent? If a person has to pay €650 per month in rent, how is he or she expected to find an additional €3,900 six months' rent – a total of €4,550 – on a social welfare payment?

It is unreasonable, it will not work, it is not right and it must be changed. I urge the Minister not to sign the regulation into law. If she does, she will put thousands of people in a homeless situation. A programme will be broadcast on TV3 tonight, one of the main stories of which will be about homeless people in this city and others. Yesterday, we saw a family which had to live in a chicken house. It is outrageous. The reason for the change to six months is to stop people claiming rent allowance. However, the decision should be left with the community welfare officers who should have discretion in these matters. Community welfare officers have always acted in a compassionate manner and they understand what is happening on the ground. This change withdraws support from people who need it most and those who need a home. The Government must provide housing and when it is provided, the Government can make changes to rent supplement. This measure attacked a soft target and there will be serious consequences.

I am disappointed with the provisions in regard to the carer's allowance, particularly because the means test was not abolished for the 149,000 people who get no recognition for their work looking after elderly people. The increase in the carer's allowance is insufficient reward for people who have devoted their lives to caring for someone in the home. The increased weekly income disregard of €40 for single people and €80 for couples will only bring a small number of people into the carer's allowance scheme. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs recently furnished a report to the Minister in regard to the position of full-time carers and I hope she will deal with many of the recommendations made in the report in the near future.

Last week in her budget debate speech, the Minister suggested the Opposition was in the baby infant class because its figures were wrong but at least we went to baby infants. The people in the Minister's Department must not have gone to school at all. For example, in 2000 the Department calculated that the pre-1953 pension scheme would cost €8.9 million for the year but that year the full cost of the scheme was €26.1 million and in 2002 it came to a staggering €113 million – 13 times the original cost. Those people did not go to baby infants – they did not go to school at all. They got it wrong and the Minister got it wrong too, as did the smart alec the Minister has in the press office who is costing us €200,000 a year. As if that was not bad enough, we had to raise a Supplementary Estimate for the Minister last week when she missed out on 28,000 children she did not know were in the State.

The Deputy knows well why that happened.

If we went to baby infants, I would like to know what class the Minister's colleagues went to. They are like the boys I met coming home from school who left their houses in the morning but did not go to school. The staff in the Minister's Department did not go to their arithmetic class because they cannot add. We have an annual birth rate of 62,000 and last year there were 28,000 children for whom the Minister could not provide.

I raise the issue of the family income supplement every year. It should be paid through the tax credit system because people who are working do not want to receive a social welfare payment. This money should be paid directly to them through their tax credits. They should not have to apply to the Department for it. Will the Minister do something about this on Committee Stage? The Minister gave increases in FIS last year but the guidelines are too low and not enough people who need to be in receipt of the FIS are in receipt of it. Will the Minister examine this issue again?

Of the 16 cutbacks, the meanest of all is the cutback in the diet allowance. This is a very small payment to people and I ask the Minister not to sign the regulation into law. The €10 benefit is not enough because of inflation, although it is a step in the right direction. Bread, milk, sugar and electricity increase in price every week. Since the budget, the cost of postage stamps has risen and the television licence fee will also increase. Other companies, such as the ESB, have also made applications to the Government for price increases. The local authorities will also eat into these people's social welfare payments through rent. The €10 benefit is gone which is wrong.

The back to work scheme threshold was 15 months, then the Minister changed it to five years and she has now brought it back to three years. The Minister should restore this back to 15 months. She knows that a mistake was made and she has gone half way towards rectifying it on this occasion.

I do not know who advises the Minister. However, those responsible for doing so are giving her bad advice. Her advisers are not protecting her interests because she has been let down by her colleagues in Government. She has attacked the weak, the poor and those who need support and help in our society. Organisations such as CORI and the St. Vincent de Paul have informed the Minister, her Department, the Government and me that people on social welfare are falling behind. That should not be the case. It is wrong that people on social welfare are not being protected by the Government. It is the Minister's responsibility to protect these people.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, found €15 million for Punchestown and today's announcement that Mr. Magnier and his associates have spent millions buying shares in Manchester United makes my blood boil. These people have horses which are making them millions of euro in stud fees and the State is not charging them a cent in tax. Is that equality? Is it fair?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy should not mention the names of people who are not in the House.

They have many representatives here.

I will not mention their names, but these people are well represented and well looked after in the House. They have the best representative who ever lobbied on their behalf in the House, namely, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy.

The Deputies opposite were always the financial knights of the right.

The Minister referred to the crèche supplement and stated that no crèches will close. Perhaps that will be the case but people on low incomes, particularly those who want to return to education or employment, will be affected.

The Minister also referred to the meal allowance, which is claimed by a small number of people and is only really effective in Dublin. Meals are not provided for children in disadvantaged homes in rural areas.

They are eligible.

This is not a nationwide scheme and it applies only in isolated areas. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions in respect of this matter so I am aware of the position.

Christmas is approaching and I will not hurt the Minister any more than she has been hurt in recent weeks. It is difficult to be nasty to the Minister and I do not intend to be nasty to her.

I am aware that Mayomen are not like that.

I make a plea to the Minister's officials that they should not sell her down the drain next year as they have done this year. What is wrong with the officials of the Department of Social and Family Affairs that they allowed—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It is not in order to refer to the officials of the Department.

That is awful. I cannot talk about anyone in the House any more.

The Deputy can talk about himself.

Civil servants are the real Government. I will not talk about the officials because some of them may be my neighbours in the near future.

The Deputy might also have to deal with them when he is Minister.

The Minister was let down by her advisers. I will not mention her officials, for whom I have great respect. These people are only doing their jobs. The Minister was sold out by the Cabinet. She let down the poor and weak in society. This cannot go on. We cannot have a three-tier society. There are the super-rich who are buying shares in Manchester United, there are the members of the middle class who are being squeezed by stealth taxes and increases and who are losing their medical cards and FIS entitlements and there are the very poor who are not represented by anybody.

Whatever she does, next year the Minister should not allow to happen what has happened this year. There is no need for the 16 cutbacks that are proposed. The Minister for Finance discovered additional revenue at the end of the year and he should introduce cutbacks in the bloodstock industry. He should not victimise the poor and the weak in society.

I wish to continue the theme begun by Deputy Ring in respect of the Minister referring to those on the Opposition benches as being in infants classes. That we are infantile would be the inference from that.

I did not say those opposite are infantile. I said that they are like baby infants.

If we are in the infants class, we are being taught today by the school-marm.

I thought the Deputy had one of those in his constituency.

Being a good school-marm, the Minister is teaching us some new words. One of these is the word "reform". When members of the class hear that word, they must learn it and use it. The other "r" words the Minister uses are "review" and "refocusing", which are both important. These three words can be replaced with one word, namely, "cutback". However, we cannot use cutback because it is a nasty word and we are not entitled to use it because it is not politically correct. When referring to cutbacks, the class should follow the Minister's example and use the "r" words.

In the run-up to the budget, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs was quite glum. She was in bad form and everyone knew that she was trying to fight her corner in Cabinet and that she was doing badly.

The Members opposite are all becoming terribly observant.

When the budget emerged, everyone knew what had happened. We could see why the Minister has been down in the dumps for so long. We could also see that she had fought the battle and lost.

She did not even lose it gloriously.

A sum of €630 million is not a loss.

Not only did she lose the battle, she was humiliated. The Minister was sent out with the axe and was obliged to bring it down on the poorest of the poor. What did she gain from wielding the axe? She gained mere trimmings, a few bob here and there. Everything she garnered amounts less than the Government is giving to the horseracing industry.

The sum is €11.2 billion.

The Minister was obliged to engage in much trimming and endure a great deal of bad press and now the Government has given more money to the horseracing industry. That is remarkable and it shows where the Government's focus lies.

The Government is certainly not focused on the poor or the less well-off. The latter is evidenced by one figure. For each of the past three years the Government, in the form of tax changes, has given €7,000 back to a single person earning €100,000. The Government believes, therefore, that it should give this extra amount to single people with no responsibilities and no families to look after who earn approximately €2,000 per week. What has it done for social welfare recipients in the same period? People on unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance do not even receive €7,000 for a full year and are obliged to survive on less.

The Minister crowed about the marvellous increases pensioners have received.

They are better than the £1.80 increase the Deputy's party provided when it was in Government.

In the period to which I refer, pensioners were given an additional €1,500.

Disgraceful.

That is sweet. What about the £1.80 increase Fine Gael gave?

Excuse me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but something appears to be making a terrible noise on the far side of the Chamber. The school mistress must have departed because a disruptive pupil has appeared and is causing a great deal of trouble.

For the information of the House, I am not a teacher.

For the entire three-year period to which I refer, old age pensioners received only €1,500. The rich were given €7,000 each year during the same period.

I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's statement on the budget and again by her contribution earlier. Perhaps a mistake has been made. If she had been closely associated with drafting her script, she might have thought more about this matter. Perhaps humility is not her strong point. Will the Minister apologise to parents for the Government's failure to meet its 2001 and 2002 promises on child benefit? She should stand up and apologise for the Government's failure to honour its commitments.

The Minister for Finance has, for two consecutive years, misled the Dáil on child benefit payments. He did not follow through on his commitments. One is misleading the House if one does not follow through on one's commitment. Nobody has apologised in that regard. Perhaps the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, as a mother, when summing up—

I am glad I am a mother at a time when Fianna Fáil and not Fine Gael is in Government. I will receive €263 from the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Order, please. The Minister will have an opportunity to reply.

I am sure the Deputy's constituents are delighted with the increases.

Perhaps the Minister, when replying, will apologise to the parents of Ireland—

To women in particular.

—and will promise to put things right.

I will now refer to the various cutbacks and to social insurance payments. The social insurance fund is in surplus. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, robbed taxpayers of €600 million when he raided that fund a couple of years ago. That fund currently has a surplus of €1.1 billion. What is the Minister for Social and Family Affairs doing? She cut back on unemployment benefit paid from insurance based schemes to which people contributed.

The Minister must explain why disability benefit is cut. I do not think she has an explanation for that decision, which is extremely mean. One must now have 52 contributions in the relevant tax year to be eligible for unemployment and disability benefits. Next April the relevant tax year will be 2002. The Minister is saying that a person who missed a contribution in 2002 will not be eligible for unemployment or disability benefit in 2004.

That is correct.

People in need of such payments do not become ill suddenly, they usually suffer illnesses that occur over time. It is likely that a person who is currently seriously ill was absent from work for a week or two in 2002. The Minister is saying such people will not now be entitled to unemployment benefit even though he or she paid into an insurance based scheme.

A person pays car insurance based on terms and conditions. I am sure Deputy Penrose could give a legal view on this. People paid contributions in 2002 in respect of entitlements in 2004. However, when that time arrives, the rules will have been changed. Instead of needing 39 stamps one will be required to have paid 52 stamps. Is that fair? I do not think it is and the Minister should amend that provision.

Where a person's spouse or partner earns more than €300 only half benefit will be paid for their children. The same argument applies in this regard. This payment is made from the social insurance fund, a scheme into which people paid and from which they are entitled to receive benefits. The Minister is not entitled to change the rules, but they will be changed. We may make the rules but one has a moral right to ensure people receive their entitlements. To change the scheme in that way is mean and the Minister should do something about it.

Unemployment benefit for a person who has less than five years' contributions is to be cut back from 15 months to 12 months. I know that the Minister has come across people in her constituency who have had to scrape together the 260 stamps required for entitlement to disability benefit. People often have major difficulties getting that amount of stamps together. The Minister is pulling the rug from under those who have recently returned to work. She is reducing unemployment benefit from 15 months to 12 months, and that is unjustifiable. I do not think she is in a position to do that given that people paid into these schemes on the basis of certain benefits being available to them. If they are to receive unemployment benefit they must have made 52 contributions in the qualifying year. A person with less than 260 stamps will have the rug pulled from under him or her. That is mean and unfair.

A number of other issues arise in terms of social welfare. Why do estimates in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners illustrate that only half of those entitled to FIS actually take it up? My colleague, Deputy Ring, referred to this matter. What is the Minister doing about that? Why not change the system so that the Revenue Commissioners pay FIS through the tax system to those entitled to it? Surely that makes more sense. I am sure the Minister is worried that everybody would then be in receipt of payment at great cost to her Department.

I have no problem with that.

The Minister will not say that. Can we take it as read that the Minister will not say that?

I have no problem with FIS payments being made to those entitled to it.

The Minister will not make the supreme effort and ensure they receive it from the Revenue Commissioners.

Widows are the forgotten sector of our society. They get a raw deal and have to survive in very difficult circumstances. I have met, as have many other Deputies, widows who are unable to survive on low incomes. What is the Minister doing in this area? She is changing the rules so that new claimants will receive only half payment in respect of unemployment or disability benefit if already in receipt of the widow's or widower's pension. She is taking away the few miserly euro that might have given them a little dignity, something which many widows and widowers want to hold on to. They want to keep their self-esteem and do not want to have to beg from anybody. The Minister is taking away the little amount of money that might have prevented them from begging and I ask her to consider that decision.

I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

Dáil Éireann noting that while the Bill provides for increases in social welfare payments announced in the budget, it also provides for the implementation of many of the social welfare cutbacks announced by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on 13 November which, if implemented, would create severe hardship for people on the lowest incomes and which have been strongly condemned by a range of organisations representing single parents, the homeless and the poor, and therefore declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

I move this motion in the context of something Deputy Ring quoted from CORI, "the overall conclusion as we review this Government's seven budgets is that they have missed a unique opportunity to build a fairer and more inclusive society where everyone has sufficient and where all are respected". While Ireland's poorest people have again been told to wait, they have waited too long. Ireland already has the widest rich-poor gap of any EU country. If the Minister for Finance's policies are followed in the years ahead, Ireland will be an even more deeply divided two-tier society – Deputy Ring referred to it as three-tier. This is unjust, unfair, unacceptable and unsustainable. These are not my words, nor am I making a political point, it is a point raised by an organisation.

The general increases fall short of the amount needed to meet the commitments to income adequacy as set out in the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion. If the Government is as committed as it says to the plan for combating poverty and removing secondary benefit poverty and unemployment traps, these increases are insufficient to achieve these desirable objectives. The increases in personal rates of payment are below the level that would have been needed to keep in line with the commitment to have a personal rate of payment to the lowest social welfare recipient of €150 in 2002 terms by 2007. The figure would need to have been approximately €12 to achieve this.

In conjunction with the increase in personal rates, the plan also includes a commitment to have rates of child benefit and child dependant allowance at 33% to 35% of the lowest rate of social welfare payment by 2007. An increase of €6 and €8 per week in child benefit, and a freezing of child dependant allowance, belittles the Minister's commitment and she needs to put her money where her mouth is. I was worth half a crown as the eldest of a family of ten and the second child was worth five shillings.

The Deputy is worth more than that.

I am not worth much more now. Children's allowance has certainly not met the target that was set. This was a solemn promise given by the Minister in this House. The thrust of pre-budget submissions made to the Minister focused on tackling and alleviating child poverty. While this was a priority, the budget singly failed to tackle it and this did not surprise me. The Taoiseach was dismissive of the Government's figures of the extent of child poverty. He dismissed claims made by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul that 300,000 children live in relative poverty. That shows that the Taoiseach and his colleagues are out of touch.

The Taoiseach was apparently unaware of Government research on the continuing extent of poverty in the country. There are 300,000 children living in relative poverty and this figure was not simply conjured up by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, it is the official result of research undertaken by the Government's agency with responsibility for poverty, namely, the Combat Poverty Agency. This agency published its pre-budget submission in October and, unless I read it incorrectly, it said that 300,000 children were living in relative poverty. This is defined as children living in a house where the income is less than 60% of the average industrial wage. A further 70,000 children experience consistent poverty, defined as not having basics such as a warm coat or a hot meal each day. This is not political propaganda, these are facts stated by organisations. I take umbrage at the comment about using political playthings. As a child growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, I knew how important it was to have basic items, which were not always available. I knew how important it was to get an additional two or three pints of milk when another child was born.

The Taoiseach has described the budget as being one of hope. While it is full of hope for the wealthy, it offers little hope for those depending on social welfare payments. If there is any threat of a downturn in economic activity, it is astonishing that social welfare should be the first area where cutbacks are sought. Of course, it is not astonishing as it come from the Minister for Finance, the author of the dirty dozen, and we will never forget him for it. It indicates that the Government is, in the Tánaiste's infamous phrase, closer to Boston than Berlin. The Government gives the impression that social welfare payments are a form of charity rather than an entitlement to be given to a rigorously monitored group of deserving poor.

The Minister has repeatedly told us that €11.26 billion is being spent on social welfare. She says it as if this impressive sounding figure should be enough to end all debate on this matter. The Minister is a capable woman and she knows that our spending per capita is one of the lowest in Europe and most benefits are not sufficient to keep people out of poverty. The facts are contained in those independent reports.

The Minister for Finance has contemptuously referred to what he terms "the poverty industry". I think the Labour Party was once referred to as a wing of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul – at least Deputy Stagg was. Whenever anyone raises the issue of the large number of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves living on inadequate incomes, the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste must feel proud that they have introduced in Ireland that vibrant American phenomenon of the working poor. The failure to index tax bands and increases in the prices of many goods and services, including increases in the cost of public services outlined by Deputy Ring, means many employed people, including those in white collar jobs, find themselves turning to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

That is correct.

The Minister can look at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul figures for October and correct me if I am telling an untruth. The number of people seeking help doubled in 12 months. The astonishing increase in spending by society at a time of rapid economic growth is a shocking indictment of the Government's failure to exclude those on low incomes from the tax net. The Government is allowing exorbitant increases in charges for many vital goods and services.

This Bill gives effect to the social welfare changes in the budget. I welcome the increases in benefits and know they will be welcomed in some places. The increases will, however, barely compensate many recipients for the increase in the cost of living. Is the Minister aware that people on low incomes suffer a higher rate of inflation than those on high incomes? People on low incomes lack adequate transport. I accept that the Minister is trying to deal with this through the rural transport initiative scheme. It is a good scheme and I applaud the Minister for it. As those on low incomes lack adequate transport and access to low cost credit, they pay more for many items than do those on higher incomes. While those who have little need to budget often tell us that the poor must spend their money unwisely, their options are limited in many cases.

In this context, it is deplorable that the Minister has decided to end funding for the money advice bureau. This service has rescued many people from the clutches of moneylenders, who do thriving business in the poorest areas of the country. While the money spent on this scheme is small, it does tremendous good. It would stand up to the most intense scrutiny on any cost-benefit analysis. I was astonished to hear some people describing it as a subsidy to banks and other lending institutions. Many of the rescue deals were organised through credit unions, which are non-profit making.

The Minister has attempted to defend changes to the rent supplement scheme as measures that will help people find more permanent accommodation. The Minister has said that her Department is not a housing authority. I understand this as I served on a local authority for many years. All applicants for rent supplements must now be assessed in terms of their need for local authority housing. The Minister said anybody on a local authority housing list will not be refused. Single people comprise one of the main groups on welfare supplement. One could nearly win the Lotto more quickly than a single person can get on to a local authority housing list.

I will tackle the Government on its failure to have joined-up or integrated government. This is a British Labour Party concept, although I do not support everything that party does. The Minister made the changes and perhaps she could rationalise them in the House after an all-party review involving all concerned, including the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, local authorities, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in respect of crèches and schools. They should all make a fair assessment of the matter and ensure that nobody falls between stools. The Minister was pre-emptive in dealing with some of the cuts.

The extra people in need of local authority housing will be added to the 60,000 on the waiting list, which the Government has done little to reduce. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government cravenly capitulated to the building industry by abandoning his proposals for a 20% social housing element in all private schemes. Last week, the Committee on Social and Family Affairs was told by the One Parent Exchange Network that more than 1,000 lone parent families could be made homeless by proposed changes to the rent allowance system. The Minister claimed today that the rent supplement was introduced as an emergency measure for a small number of people, namely, single people. However because of the high cost of houses it has become a last resort for a significant number of people.

I know the Minister said nobody would become homeless as a result of the proposals. However, the thrust of the submissions made to the committee was that there is significant fear that people will become homeless. Dublin has one of the highest rates of homelessness in Europe. There are more people homeless in Dublin than in Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford combined.

I have always said I favour a regime of higher taxation, especially in the capital taxation area. I differ fundamentally from the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, in this regard. He has a right to his view but I have a different philosophy and do not mind saying so.

Tax the greedy, not the needy.

Exactly. Inequality in the education sector begins at pre-school level. The Minister struck another blow for inequality by cutting the crèche allowance for some of the most vulnerable children. Ireland has the poorest provision for pre-school education in the EU. While well-off parents can pay for such education, those on low incomes, whose children need it most, are to be deprived of the limited crèche facilities available to them. There is a wealth of evidence that good pre-school education for children from low-income families is the best way to ensure such children remain in the education system up to third level. In France, every child is guaranteed a place in pre-school and payment is according to means. In Ireland, we guarantee the rich that they will pay low tax and we cannot even guarantee our children primary school places.

A few days before the Minister announced the restriction on the supplement, we learned that money was spent on food and drink, including champagne. I am not one to make such arguments but the response of the Government was akin to that of the famous Marie Antoinette who said: "Let them eat cake". It seems as if the Government, in seeking ways to save money, deliberately introduced cuts in the schemes that benefit the weakest and most needy in society while leaving intact all the tax avoidance loopholes that benefit the wealthiest, including tax exiles who fly here periodically to bend the ear of the Minister for Finance regarding some new scheme for minimising the tax they pay in the country where they make their money.

When it comes to the crunch, even if the Minister for Finance boldly and solemnly believed he had to find another €58 million, why did he not provide the Minister for Social and Family Affairs with some of the extra moneys that became available? We on this side of the House are of the view that she did not want us to see this. That is a concession.

We hope.

I am prepared to say I know. I take the Minister at face value and I find her to be an honourable colleague. I know the Minister for Finance still thought he was Minister with responsibility for social welfare.

He never forgave us for fighting tooth and nail over the dirty dozen social welfare cuts. We will fight him over the savage 16 in the same way. If he wanted to save the €58 million, why did he not give the Minister, a decent person, one tenth of the extra money received in capital gains tax, which amounted to €500 million odd? A sum of €58 million or €56 million of this revenue would have spared Deputy Coughlan's blushes—

That is right.

—and made sure she would not have had to fight or give out to those of us who made relevant points on this issue. Such a provision would have obviated the need for the panoply of cuts that affect the poor. Those who are most in need were hit. There is no political justification for singling out the poorest sections of society and asking them to carry the burden. Many other sections of society are well cosseted by the general range of tax reliefs and allowances provided by the Government. These sections could certainly have borne it if the extra €58 million required was extracted from them.

The cuts are mean-spirited and petty and are part of the philosophy that drives the economic policy of the Government. This philosophy is echoed in a Tory viewpoint that existed in Britain in the 1980s, namely, the belief that the poor would not be poor if only they tried a little harder.

On your bike.

Exactly. I remember it well. The thinking of the Progressive Democrats can be seen to be at work in this regard. In 1997, it targeted single mothers and promised to introduce measures to encourage single mothers to remain with their families rather than to establish one-parent households. This provoked an outburst of fury from everybody, including, I would say, the current Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I imagine she was furious about it.

Now they have got them as well.

The McCreevy-Harney axis is blatantly right of centre and proudly espouses itself as such. It has dressed up, dusted down and reformulated the proposal. It is included as one of the savage 16. There is no social or economic justification for the cuts, and this is the problem. I wrote a note this evening which asks whether it is a case of the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, the author of the dirty dozen cuts, wanting to act as if he were still Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

Only parents who subsist on social welfare income receive the crèche supplement. They have to be verified by health professionals as having a range of special needs. Children are on waiting lists for speech therapy and other services. Such children may be prone to leaving school early and their parents are being paid, even after the budget, a mere €16.80 per week. This sum is supposed to be sufficient to maintain a child and it has not changed in many years. We are often told about what the rainbow Government did in 1997, but nobody ever mentions that this provision has been in place since then. This matter will be hurled back at the Minister until she does something about it.

Am I correct in suggesting that the cost of crèche payments amounts to €1.5 million? Perhaps it is that I cannot add and have done the Government a disservice.

I believe it is less.

It can be seen clearly that the return on that investment is immense. I urge the Minister to think again. It is not correct to suggest that we are dealing exclusively with a Dublin phenomenon. It is also evident down the country. In fairness to the Minister, I thank her for her assistance with a resource centre in my area. I am from an area which had to qualify for—

They looked after the Deputy too.

What about Dublin North-Central?

I have never invested as much money in a constituency.

Half the crèche supplement payments pertain to Dublin, but this is not unreasonable given its population. What measures will be in place to ensure that no crèche closes? A significant investment is being made in the future which is to be focused on children. It might be only €50 or €60 per month but it helps to ensure social inclusion rather than exclusion.

The review of the one parent family payment issued by the Department in 2000 includes, in paragraph 28, an argument that employment is the best route out of poverty for lone parents. The report also noted that three quarters of lone parents have progressed no further in school than the junior or intermediate certificate, while almost half have left school before even reaching the junior certificate level. Realistically, if these mothers are to make a better life for themselves and their children through employment, they need to be encouraged in the first instance to improve their skills and education levels to get out of the poverty trap and earn enough to support themselves and their children. In the long run, this saves the State significant amounts of money as more lone parents become self-supporting and their children grow up and get out of poverty.

That is why the Minister's proposal to abolish the crèche grant for those on the vocational training opportunities scheme and other training schemes is short-sighted, as is the abolition of the transition payment that eases mothers over the €15,200 earnings barrier and restricting access to the third level back to education allowance. Deputy Finian McGrath will know that programmes like TAP, the Trinity Access Programme and BIHE, Ballymun Into Higher Education, offered a second chance to those who lost out on education first time around to lift themselves out of poverty. These are essential programmes from which benefits permeate right down. We obtain a tremendous return on the small amount of money invested. Was this subject to poverty proofing or was it hurled out to meet the Minister for Finance's diktat?

The effect of the restrictions will be to leave more children and their parents stuck in a poverty trap for the sake of short-term savings. Taken together with the reduction in community employment, which impacts on the provision of community crèches and on work opportunities for lone parents, the effect is to limit the opportunities and incentives for lone parents to escape from poverty.

The Minister referred to rent allowance and said she did not believe the Department of Social and Family Affairs should be in the business of subsidising housing as it is not a housing authority. That flies in the face of reality. For every two households that rent from local authorities, one depends on the supplementary welfare rent allowance scheme. Like it or not, rent allowance has become a mainstream housing support for many thousands of low income households. Soaring waiting lists for council housing have left them with no alternative. Between 1999 and 2002, the number of families on local authority waiting lists, according to the official estimate of housing needs, grew from 39,000 to 48,000. Almost all that increase was accounted for by the increasing numbers unable to afford existing accommodation, that is, predominantly low income tenants in the private rented sector. If the shortage in provision of local authority houses causes waiting lists to surge, much of that has had to be accommodated in the private rented sector under the SWA rent allowance provision the Minister plans to reform rather than cut.

We all know that families who accommodate a daughter and her new family in the parental home, often at the expense of gross overcrowding, can experience tensions. When a second son or daughter starts a family, there is no alternative but for one family to move into private rented accommodation because most homes of a modest size cannot accommodate three families. Will these people be denied a rent allowance? Will those moving from the parental home to private rented housing be eligible for rent supplement if they have not rented for six months? How is a young single parent on an income of €144 – or €154 after the budget increase – be expected to pay the costs of rent, heating and ESB if no subsidies are available?

Single people make up another group which will be affected by this mean-spirited move. Traditionally local authorities have never catered for them until they became senior citizens. I am especially concerned about vulnerable single men, who may have come out of homes. The regulations will have to be amended to ensure these people are not at risk.

If the Minister wants to reform rent allowance and encourage opportunity, why did she not examine the €317 ceiling on earnings for receipt of rent allowance? That has remained unchanged since it was set at £250 in 1996. I am beginning to find items that have not changed in the past seven years. That figure was originally set at the then level of average earnings but it is now just more than half of average earnings. For example, a lone parent with two children in private rented housing on a CE scheme would break the income limit and forfeit the rent allowance. This traps approximately 11,000 lone parents on rent allowance in poverty by denying them the chance to increase their incomes through part-time work without forfeiting their rent allowance. A dry accountant's approach might see this as a saving, but a more dynamic approach would encourage people to improve their circumstances by taking up work.

On sections 9. 10 and 11, there is no justification for the increase from 39 to 52 in the number of paid social insurance contributions required for entitlement to unemployment benefit, disability benefit and health and safety benefit. Neither is there justification for removing child dependant payments from people whose partners earn more than €300 per week. Removing three months of unemployment benefit from people who have paid PRSI for fewer than five years is especially harsh. These benefits are paid for by employees and employers. The Government does not contribute a red cent to the social insurance fund but it raided the fund, as Deputy McGrath said, in 2002 to pay for its re-election. In spite of this raid, there is a surplus in the fund. The Government has no moral right to change the rules and restrict the owners of the fund from availing of their entitlements and receiving their fair share from it. This is effectively another smash and grab raid on a fund which does not belong to the Government. There might be some justification for these cuts if the rates of PRSI were reduced for low income workers, but there is no change there either. The traps which exist at the €287 per week income level will continue and will be felt more extensively when the minimum wage is increased in February.

If two parents are working, they each pay their PRSI, yet if one becomes unemployed, he or she does not receive a payment for children because suddenly they are dependent on the other parent. Parents in this situation can legitimately ask why they pay PRSI on each income. Why is there an individual contribution system and a couple-based benefit system? Have the Minister and the Department made progress in deciding how the system should develop in future?

Why do we lurch from year to year making cuts here and there, almost no structural improvements and having no view of where the system should be in the future? I invite the Minister to bring forward a blueprint for the social welfare system over the next ten to 15 years which will show how she intends to deal with the anomalies, make this an inclusive system and ensure that, in ten years' time, we are not still pointing out further traps and exclusions while giving our constituents a history lesson to explain why they do not qualify for payments.

The Bill does not deal with the supplementary welfare cut, which is the unkindest cut of all, although the Minister referred to it. It does not spell out how many people will find themselves homeless because of this measure. No matter how often the Minister denies it, that will be the inevitable result of the decisions which have been made. There has been much talk in recent days of the diversionary tactic of decentralisation, but the rent supplement arrangements have always been decentralised in their implementation, although the major decisions are made nationally. Moving the Minister's Department to Drogheda will not change the central decision-making process and, even worse, it will not change the fact that the numbers of homeless people will increase and that new lone parents will be unable to establish separate homes for themselves and their children. It will not change the sadly disconnected nature of these Government decisions on which I wish to focus.

We produced a good report on carers and, apart from including the income disregards, not a whit was done about it. We said that abolishing the means test was a long-term goal, as was the move to home-based subvention. However, we recommended those with social welfare payments, such as widows, should receive 50% of the carer's allowance. Why was that not introduced? The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, may produce a package.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn