Prior to the sos we were speaking about widows and widowers, but I have lost my train of thought – I was in full flow.
Social Welfare Bill 2003: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 5:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of extending the social welfare free schemes to widows and widowers who do not currently qualify in that regard.".
–(Deputy Penrose).
The Minister said she would look after them next year.
That is what I would normally say. I indicated that our emphasis was on widowers over the age of 66 and on dealing with certain anomalies. There is a cost implication to this. I advised on Committee Stage that it would cost €32.7 million annually to provide additional supports or the introduction of free schemes to widows and widowers. I do not have the resources to provide such schemes. This will be constantly under review but at this time I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 7, 10, 15 and 18 are related to No. 6 and these amendments may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on promises made by Government in the Agreed Programme for Government and the national anti-poverty strategy and the increase in payments which would be required to meet the NAPS promises by 2007.".
I move the amendment in the context of the targets outlined by the Minister in the national anti-poverty strategy. What effort has she made in the budget to achieve these? She has fallen notably short and we are disappointed about this. The Minister should consider the figures. The Combat Poverty Agency prioritised the ending of family and child poverty and set out targets for increases in child benefit, personal social welfare rates and employment supports. Every Minister makes the point, with which it is hard to argue, that the best way out of poverty is through employment, but some of the actions taken by the Government, including in the Minister's Department, have shown glaring inconsistencies. The IDA recently responded to some budge measures under which the back to education and back to work allowance, which should have been priorities, have been cut. This is foolhardy economics. There are many inconsistencies in the Government's position on poverty and the NAPS targets, including it position on payments that target children in the poorest families.
Deputy Boyle has been a consistent and trenchant proponent of some changes in that area. That is not a view he has arrived at recently; he has always argued it in a fairly consistent fashion. Effectively it is frozen since 1994 and in real terms would have been devalued by approximately 25% to 30% in that period. They called for an increase in child benefit of €12 per month and an increase in child dependant allowance from €16.80 to €19.30 for children under the age of 12 and up to €21.60 for those over the age of 12, recognising a point Deputy McGrath used to make that as children get older there is a need for increased expenditure. As a mother, the Minister knows that better than any of us here.
Some 300,000 children live in relative poverty, according to a Combat Poverty report, augmented by figures from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which has witnessed a significant increase during October and November. Some 70,000 of those experience consistent poverty. As the Minister will appreciate, childhood poverty can have devastating consequences. We can get a definition of "relative poverty" where one's income is less than 60% of the average industrial wage. Not having basic items such as a warm coat or a hot meal on daily basis are issues I would be focused on.
That many of the targets set have been missed is an abject failure. Those targets were set within the various programmes for Government and independent reports. Those reports are not made in a political fashion. It is our duty as an Opposition to ensure that targets which are set in an independent fashion are achieved. In the context of a relatively affluent and rich economy it is important that the fruits are distributed where they are most needed. That is critical.
The Minister may say she got €11.26 billion. She is a good teacher and we have all got it into our skulls. At the end of the day it is how it is distributed. One may say more is needed but we live in a society where more elderly people have to be looked after. It behoves us all, irrespective of which side of the fence we are on, to provide for them. My colleague, Deputy Ryan, will have more to say but certainly there has been a significant failure on the part of the Government. That is not political point-scoring or bashing, but it stands up to independent scrutiny.
In the context of the amendments tabled by my colleagues and me, we want to know how the Government will achieve those targets by 2007, given the significant shortfall. We never knew whether the €150 in 2002 was set in CPI or average earnings terms. It was left suitably vague to allow for whatever target is ultimately achieved to be claimed as a success, without losing face. Even in that context, it will take a significant increase of funding, and the Minister for Finance will have to come to the table with a full deck the next time, otherwise there will be a massive shortfall in achieving those targets which are reasonable in 2002. Given what has happened during the past two years in the lower levels of social welfare it will be difficult to achieve them. We do not know whether indexation of the target to wages or prices is the preferred option.
Children have been badly let down in that they received only €6 this year. Most independent commentators indicated they would get at least €12. Others said it would take €15 this year to achieve what the Minister for Finance set out in the 2001 and 2002 budgets. They are solemn commitments given on the floor of the House by the Minister for Finance and he has left the Minister without anything in this regard. That is the reason we bring it to the attention of the House on Report Stage.
The purpose of these amendments is to address the NAPS reports to see how far the Government has fallen back on its commitments. It is worth looking at the key targets, which the Minister and the Government signed up to, to reduce the numbers who are consistently poor below 2% and, if possible, eliminate consistent poverty, under the current definition of that term. Even if we were to accept the consistent poverty line, without going into relative poverty where there could be 844,000, those figures show that 210,000 live in constant poverty in this rich Christian country.
We set a target to achieve a rate of €150 per week in 2002 terms for the lowest rate of social welfare to be met by 2007. We have heard much about the increase and the success that has been made of it. To meet that target by 2007, I estimate that an extra €50 would be required over the next three budgets, approximately €15 or €16 per week. The Labour Party and the other Opposition parties will vigorously pursue the Minister and the Government to ensure this commitment is met.
We are speaking about poverty. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, announced the budget, the Minister announced the Estimates and the Social Welfare Bill and the backbenchers said it was fantastic that there had been a €100 million increase this year over last year. That was in the context of the budget and the increase was 18%. There is no reference good, bad or indifferent to last year's budget which was reduced by 50% on the previous year when over €100 million was handed out. Last year that amount was reduced. We have got extra money but compared with what was available two years ago it goes nowhere towards meeting the commitments entered into in NAPS.
With a view to expediting this issue many are looking to the Government. We will not even touch upon the 16 vicious cuts. Solely in the context of NAPS, the Government is falling behind in its commitment. We will put pressure on the Government to ensure that commitment is carried out.
Given that the Minister has the opportunity – the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, had the opportunity but did not do so – I call on her to apologise for misleading the Dáil in 2001 and 2002, when the Government promised women that the commitment regarding child benefit would be honoured in this year's budget. It was not honoured. The women and children of Ireland were owed €17 and €20 respectively from last year but they got only €8 and €6 respectively. The Minister and the Government should apologise for misleading the House and the people with regard to child benefit.
Organisations such as CORI and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the national children's strategy, the national anti-poverty strategy and other voluntary and State agencies are monitoring what is happening and how we deal with people who are falling behind in society. CORI has said that the gap between rich and poor has widened by €294 per week. The UN international day of the family will be celebrated on 15 May next. The only way to deal with child poverty is through child benefit. Every report has shown that child benefit is spent on children.
Recently the Society of St. Vincent de Paul highlighted two problems. First, there are approximately 300,000 children in poverty in Ireland. Second, more and more people are falling into the poverty trap. People who are coming to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul will soon be pushed towards money-lenders to borrow money to pay for Christmas because these poor creatures cannot live on social welfare.
The Government has set out a strategy and has established State agencies to protect the less well-off in society but it is already falling behind in meeting its commitments and promises. For the ninth year in succession there has been no increase in the child dependant allowance, the most important income for women who are rearing families. Approximately 99% of the payment is drawn by women and it is important that this continues to be the case. Women spend this money on their children. The Minister gave a commitment to the women of the country in 2001 but in 2002, when we had the first downturn in the economy, that promise was broken. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget Statement in 2002, said he would deal with the matter the following year, but as of today he has not even dealt with last year's problem. The Government's commitment has not been met.
More than 9,000 people in Ireland now earn more than €200,000 per year. When the Government came into office those same people earned less than €100,000 per year. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle classes are being squeezed by stealth taxes and other costs. They are feeling the pressure. The economy will feel this pressure by the end of the year. The Minister for Finance was able to find a record amount of money at the end of the year but if he paid the money he owes to local authorities and others and if the Government had not held back on other payments, he would not have that money.
He gives it to his friends.
Of course he does. It is important that we tackle child poverty. What proposals has the Minister or her Department regarding child benefit? Is a review of child benefit currently under way in her Department? Is her Department considering means testing the benefit? That would be the greatest political mistake she or the Government could make. When the women of Ireland start marching they will not stop at the gates of Leinster House.
Does Deputy Ring not realise that I am a woman?
I know she is. The women will come in through the gates and all the ushers and police in the world will not stop them if the Minister interferes with child benefit. This is the one payment received directly by women.
Deputy Ring should tell the House about his party's record. Let us hear the Fine Gael record.
The Fine Gael record is not a bad one. When we get the chance again it will be an even better one. If I am in the hot seat it will be a good record.
I would love to give the Deputy a day in it.
There is concern among the public that child benefit will be means-tested. Is a review under way in the Department? This is the one payment that women receive. Many men who have very good jobs and incomes do not give any of it to their wives. Many such women depend on child benefit. That benefit must not be touched by the Minister, the Minister for Finance or this or any future Government. I would not be a part of any Government that would do such a thing, regardless of how it was made up.
We have a problem regarding poverty and children. The best way to tackle child poverty is with child benefit and the child dependant allowance. If the money is given to the women it will be spent on children. The Minister did not get what she wanted in this year's budget, but next year I hope she and the Government will honour the commitment given to the women of Ireland in 2002 and clear the record of this House.
The focus of these amendments is on ensuring that the Minister lives up to the commitments given by the Government in a number of strategy and policy documents since it came to office. The national anti-poverty strategy is the main one of those commitments. There are interlinked standards which the Opposition wishes to see being met but the Government annually fails to meet them. Child benefit has been mentioned already.
I am not convinced that the Government is fully committed to the national anti-poverty strategy. If we look at the commitments made in NAPS as part of Sustaining Progress we see how the various social partners are treated in different ways. Once employers get their productivity and the unions get their wage increases where is the collective goodwill towards seeing that the commitments to those who are income dependent in the social welfare system are met? They are largely met in the partnership process through the community and voluntary pillar but members of that pillar say that successive national agreements, even prior to Sustaining Progress, have included commitments by successive Governments which were not met. Such commitments have always been bottom of the pile and have always been those least honoured. We need a linkage to the Social Welfare Bill which will show how these commitments are being met, when they are met and are they likely to be met. This is why these amendments should be seriously considered.
If the Government annually falls behind in its commitments and we cannot predict what annual funding for future budgets will be, what confidence can the Opposition have that these commitments will ever be met? If the Government fails to make even an annual tranche of these social welfare payments – and next year's will be larger and the following year's larger again – the people's confidence that these commitments will be met will be undermined. Other Members have pointed out where the linkages should be made by referring to the children strategy and the health strategy as well as Sustaining Progress.
My amendment refers to the need to poverty-proof all measures. I am ashamed to say that I have to urge the Department of Social and Family Affairs to poverty-proof its own policies. This is not being done, although a commitment to do so was made in the partnership process. As a lead Department, the Department of Social and Family Affairs should be giving greater guidance to other Departments to make sure their counter-productive policies do not undermine what it is trying to achieve.
I am not sure that we read the same ESRI report on monitoring poverty trends because the Minister hid behind her constant reference to consistent poverty while I argue that relative poverty is the better guide because it shows the growing inequalities in our society. Even if she does not accept the figure in the ESRI document on the growth in persistent poverty, we should heed that warning. Persistent poverty refers to people in relative poverty for longer than three years. The Minister can hide behind her assertions about consistent poverty but, if she is not prepared to acknowledge the existence and growth of persistent poverty, her Department and those in Government who pursue the Boston rather than the Berlin model of economic development and social welfare will always ignore indicators such as this.
Deputies Penrose and Seán Ryan have submitted an amendment similar to mine. Like many Opposition Members I am not a fan of An Agreed Programme for Government, but it is worth re-reading now and again to remind ourselves of what was promised in the days before the Minister for Finance came up with his adjustments—
Cuts.
They were called adjustments at the time. It is another word introduced by the Government. There was a pledge to publish an annual report of progress towards the achievement of an anti-poverty target. These amendments are to give effect to a commitment already outlined in the Government programme, but will people be paid and the increases given?
Other speakers referred to the gap that must be narrowed, which is the issue of greatest concern. Deputy Ring referred to child benefit, an area where the Government reneged on its commitment without warning and told people that they had to manage. The Minister indicated that she will peg the increases to prices, not to wages. In the discussion on Committee Stage, Deputy Seán Ryan asked why they were not linked to wages. Perhaps the Minister will allude to that in her reply. The gap is significant and a long way from the targets set in the national anti-poverty strategy, but the Minister for Finance does not seem to be planning increased spending soon. While the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, may seem genuine in her commitment to meet these targets, it is hard to see how we can bridge that gap. The amendment is asking for a report on simple measures such as whether we are on target, which clearly we are not, and how we can bridge that gap.
The child dependant allowance will not change. I am not increasing CDA. It has not been done for several years and is a disincentive. Before the Deputy runs off to try to get a headline in the newspapers, he should be aware that, in terms of child benefit, the ending child poverty initiative is an evaluation of the family income supplement and CDA, not child benefit. The Deputy should not say that we are means-testing child benefit, because we are not.
Is the Minister reviewing child benefit?
Deputy Ring, please allow the Minister to speak. The Chair would also like to know what amendments we are discussing and to what they refer.
I asked a question previously.
I am entitled to review all schemes under the aegis of the Department. We conduct many expenditure reviews in the Department and, when the time comes, I will review child benefit and child poverty initiatives.
There will be a review.
I did not say there would be a review.
Is there a review or not?
There is no review at present. The current review is under the initiative in the programme for Government for ending child poverty, which is evaluating secondary payments and studying the interactions between CDA and the family income supplement. Until such time as a recommendation is submitted to me, I will not take action on CDA.
There is a review.
I ask Deputy Ring to allow Report Stage to continue in an orderly manner.
We are dealing specifically with means-tested schemes under the ending child poverty initiative. Three years remain in which to reach the realisable targets in NAPS. Considerable amounts of money must be provided. We went some way towards that this year.
On the basis of the targets, income supports of €150 in 2002 terms are not attached to an indicator. Others have interpretations of the indicator to which it is attached, but there are no commitments on its attachment to an indicator. It is the real value of the payment. Deputy Crowe recalled the discussion on Committee Stage and said that it should be attached to average industrial wages. If it were, it would be less than it is now because all payments in recent years have been increased by considerably more than that indicator. It is best if we attain a target set by NAPS of €150 in 2002 terms, which is approximately €173 now depending on the consumer price index.
There is a plethora of NAPS targets, but we are not bothered about those which are being achieved more quickly.
We will not agree to that if the Minister will not adhere to Government policy.
I refer to the target for the elderly which we are well on the way to attaining before 2007. The Deputies should not forget that these targets are all relevant to 2007 and this is only the second year of the programme for Government on which I intend to make progress.
Every time Deputy Ring comes to the House, he asks me to apologise.
The Minister should apologise. She broke a promise. She misled the House.
I will not apologise for the more than €1 billion we gave in child benefit, which is better than the paltry insignificant piece of a shilling that the Deputy's party gave in child benefit when it was in Government. Let us call a spade a spade.
They were different times.
I thank the Deputy.
The Minister should go back to the war.
The Minister was not even born.
The Minister should go back to Eamon de Valera's time.
Deputy Ring, please allow the Minister to speak. We are dealing with amendments Nos. 6, 10, 15 and 18 together. Second Stage is over.
We are in different times. If I go back to biblical times—
The Minister is provoking me.
The Deputy is lucky.
I hope the Minister's remarks are relevant to the amendments.
They certainly are. I do not know of any Government that can pay out more in expenditure than it has in income.
It can take it back. It can make choices.
The targets are set within the economic parameters of the Government and the Minister for Finance has eloquently adverted to these on several occasions. All programmes and targets, such as NAPS and the programme for Government, refer to economic ability and stability in the country and, despite the recent difficulties, the Government has been in a position to give almost €900 million extra to my Department. That signals its commitment to reaching the NAPS target and ending child poverty.
I am not naive enough to say that we will eradicate poverty in the next number of years, but it is my aim, as it is of every other Member, to do my utmost in this respect. Poverty indicators are academic. My Department and I, as Minister, deal with those in poverty. There are academic arguments about those who are at risk of poverty. One can be at risk of poverty and not be in poverty. It is my job initially to support those who are in poverty and to bring them above the poverty line. That is the reason there has been such a great reduction in recent years in those who have been living in consistent poverty.
Deputy Boyle and I were in the same year in UCD and he knows that once there is a change in the economy, relativity will always click in. He is talking about relativity. I could be relatively poorer than he is.
I am talking about those who are persistently poor.
That is the way in which this issue is examined. There is a paradox in that there can be an increase in relative poverty at a time of economic boom. It would be wrong for such a position to continue, but when we are talking about examining poverty indicators, our view is that addressing those in consistent poverty is the best way of addressing this issue. Poverty is not necessarily an income support issue. It encompasses everything. That is the reason we have an anti-poverty strategy and we take account of issues over and above income support.
While not accepting any of the amendments in this grouping, I am sure the Opposition Members will ensure that I do my job. That is their job.
The Minister could be back on this side of the House quicker than she thinks.
The Minister should not allow herself to be deflected by interruptions.
She has another four years to go.
Those targets are appropriate and achievable. Some 88% of child benefit increases have been achieved to date. We do not have much further to go.
Only 50% of such increases have been achieved. I do not know where the Minister got that figure. She has a long way to go.
I challenge the Deputy on that.
She is misleading the House.
I am not.
Deputy Ring and his colleagues are entitled to two minutes to respond, but he has used up that time in the interruptions he has made.
I ask Deputy Ring to retract his allegation. I am not misleading the House on the basis of what has been achieved in respect of child benefit.
That was last year's target.
The Minister is not misleading us on the promise she made.
Some 88% of such increases have been achieved and I intend to achieve 100% of such increases. Even today, more than €1 billion is being provided in child benefit. I agree with Members that child benefit is one of the best ways of addressing child poverty issues, but equated to that it also deals with the issue of child support and child care.
I will pursue the NAPS target set and agreed by Government and the social partners. It is my intention to proceed as quickly as possible to its achievement. While not being facetious, I hope to have three years to do it.
The national anti-poverty strategy set a target of €150 per week in 2002 terms for the lowest rate in social welfare benefit to be met by 2007. If that figure was indexed, we would need to achieve a rate of €182.70 per week. The lowest rate in social welfare benefit in the budget is €134.80 per week. Therefore, there is a significant way to go.
Deputy Ring is correct in that there was an increase in child benefit of only €6 per month, despite the Government's commitment in this regard. It would need to raise the payment by approximately €24 per month to meet that commitment. There was no increase in child dependant allowance and the Minister said firmly she is dismissing that out of hand. There is no mention of the fact that the Government would have to bring in only 200,000 people on low income into the safety net and enable them to qualify for a medical card.
Since coming to office the Government has managed to widen the gap between the rich and the poor – this would be in line with the philosophy of the Minister, Deputy McCreevy – by €294 per week, according to figures calculated by CORI in its budget analysis. There was no mention about that in terms of child care, despite the crèche supplement being removed as part of the savage 16 cuts, which is to pay for the cost of emergency child care. In that context, starting with this budget the Minister is faced with the challenge of delivering a real increase of about 25% over four years. That is the extent of what she has to meet.
We are not misleading anybody. We are acting on figures that were laid down. I agree with Deputy Crowe that some of the figures set down in the various partnership agreements were at the lower end of the scale. If we cannot achieve those, what hope have we of trying to achieve a higher level to eradicate the numbers in poverty, a situation that is not of our making? These figures were given independently.
The Minister has not reassured me about child benefit in respect of whether it has been assessed in the Department.
It is not being assessed.
It is the usage of words that frightens me. I know about the consultants.
The Deputy should do.
They are the real winners. They have got €100 million out of the system and none of them will be in receipt of social welfare benefit for the next 25 years because they have been well looked after.
I want to support the Minister in trying to eliminate child poverty. The promise given regarding child benefit was broken. As to whether the Minister's figures or my figures are correct, my figures indicate that the Government has met only 50% of the target set.
Another scandal is that the Government promised that 200,000 more people would be eligible for a medical card, but that is another promise it broke. Fewer people have a medical card now because the guidelines have not been adjusted by the Department. People with children on a low income who should have a medical card and need one do not have one.
An increase in child benefit is the way forward. I reiterate my request to Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and the Minister for Finance to keep their hands off the child benefit. The Government made a commitment in that regard which it should honour.
The Minister said she had a few years more in office, but I wonder. She is getting nervous, as are the backbenchers. The decentralisation proposals settled them a little, but prior to that announcement they were running out to the plinth every hour on the hour, every day of every week, because they did not agree with Government policy.
Those in the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are dealing with child poverty on a daily basis. They know what is happening on the ground. Some Members of this House who sit in the front seats opposite are off in their clinics meeting people at the grassroots. Power has gone to their heads. When they are here, they smile, grin and laugh at everybody because they think they know better than everybody else. The PD philosophy has contaminated Fianna Fáil, because the PD philosophy is to leave those who are weak and have been left behind in society where they are and forget about them while people trample on top of them, but that is not my philosophy.
The way forward in addressing this issue is by way of increases in child benefit. The Minister should make sure that she honours the commitment given by the Government in that respect.
I refute what the Minister said about child benefit and child dependant allowance. The 88% target which she boasted of achieving was last year's target.
No, it is this year's target.
It is a rolling target.
We are now a year on and a commitment has not been given to a target beyond that one. With regard to the Minister's adamant assertion regarding child dependant allowance, she surely must be aware that several reports have indicated that lone parent families, particularly women who are dependent on child benefit and child dependant allowance, have slipped further behind because of their income dependence on child dependant allowance. The Minister is making a clear statement that lone parent families will be proportionately less well supported because of her policy.
The current unemployment benefit rate is €134.80 with the increase. Between 2005 and 2007 the Govenrment must bridge a gap of €47.90 in that respect over three budgets. On average, this works out at an annual increase of €15.97 a year, which is more than two and half times the increase awarded this year. This Minister is saying this will happen. The kindest thing one could say is that the NAPS strategy is on hold in many areas. Years ago we were told that labour must wait and now we are told that the poor must wait. The Minister is saying it is not being paid this year but will be paid next year. People do not believe the amount will be paid over the period. The opportunity was missed and the poor must wait again.
A number of Members of the House must be completely deaf. They accuse me of saying certain things. Making a bland statement that I am neglecting lone parents and suggesting they will be worse off is incorrect.
The Minister's policies have that effect.
Deputy Boyle had his opportunity to speak.
To say the poor must wait is equally incorrect. The poor might have to wait when the Deputy's party is in power.
The gap is getting wider.
During a time of economic difficulties, a sum of €630 million has been provided. Decisions were made by me. The Deputy may call me anything he wants, for all I care.
I did not call the Minister anything.
This year, we were able to give €10 to everyone. Working on our achievements and our targets, the projected figure is €12 each year. That is attainable. It will be more attainable when we have an economic upturn. This is the best way forward.
One of the difficulties of which we are all aware is that posed by the disincentives which arise when people move into employment. CDAs are one of those. Working on the interaction of CDAs and family income supplement, which I greatly support, and about which we have had numerous discussions over the past weeks, is the best way of addressing child poverty and the transition problem I mentioned. Despite what people might say, we are very good in this country at facilitating the transition from an income support into employment, for example, and ensuring that people have a secondary benefit. I am not in any way making the poor poorer and the rich richer through the implementation of the policies of the Government. It is very easy to say that.
It is the truth. Statistics show it.
The Minister to continue without interruption.
It seems so only in headlines.
I can supply figures. There are 300,000 children living in poverty.
One has to go behind the headlines and look at the actions. Hard as it is for the Opposition to accept, the actions are taken on this side of the House. We have given significant increases to people.
People are beaten down by inflation and food prices.
They could not be beaten down by inflation because inflation is now at very low levels.
It is very hard to accept that. There were 16 cuts.
Deputy Ryan had his opportunity to speak. We want an orderly debate on Report Stage.
It is my policy to continue the implementation of provisions and the attainment of certain targets. For the benefit of those on the other side of the House, I will advise them once again on child benefit. Up to 2004, this Government's expenditure on child benefit, inclusive of the amount provided for in the recent budget, will come to €1,775.5 million. What remains now is €214.8 million. I am accused by the Opposition of not being great at mathematics. Deputy Ring should get a calculator and work out the percentages spent.
The Minister broke the promises of 2000 to 2003. She has misled the House.
The Minister should address her remarks through the Chair and not provoke the Deputy. That will mean fewer interruptions.
I cannot accept the amendments made on the other side of the House.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the issue of having regard to the reference in NAPS to increasing the lowest social welfare payment to €150 per week in 2002 terms, whether the expression 'in 2002 terms' means indexation of the target to wages or prices.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendment No. 13 is an alternative to amendment No. 9. These amendments may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of further extending school meals programmes.".
This amendment relates to the next part of the programme. It could be discussed in conjunction with the various other parts relating to child poverty as discussed by the Minister. She has accepted the importance of intervening at an early stage of child poverty and the importance of hot meals in terms of giving people opportunities while they are in education. That advantage flows on into further education. The Minister has made some changes. I think it was in 1911 that this scheme was initiated. Therefore, the Minister is the first in some 90 years to change the scheme. Some credit is due to her.
We accept and approve of the improvements but we want to know the cost of extending the scheme to rural areas. I am a rural politician and I suppose the Minister looks after her own back garden somehow or other. The scheme is very important in urban areas. What would the cost be of extending it to all primary and secondary schools?
I support the amendment. We must make greater progress in this area. There are thousands of children in urban and rural areas of Ireland going to school daily without a meal. That is the reality for many people in disadvantaged areas, where family life is dysfunctional. It is unrealistic to expect children who attend school without having had a meal to be as attentive and active as other children. In terms of poverty and the effort to create equality of opportunity, this area must be dealt with. I acknowledge the progress made, but we must go further in helping the disadvantaged in urban and rural areas.
The scheme under discussion is very city orientated. I have asked the Minister at a committee, and ask her now, to write to all schools and explain to them what the scheme means, in order that schools which may need to avail of the scheme may do so. Many rural schools will not know that this scheme is available. It is important that a child who leaves home without a hot meal can be given one in school. A child can more easily be educated when warm and fed and looked after. Some children come from homes where they have no breakfast or dinner, and sometimes no fire, and that causes problems in their education.
The scheme is very good. The Minister has promoted it citywide and I ask her to promote it in rural areas. Some schools may not wish to avail of it, but many others would wish to do so. The Minister should get her four public relations officers moving and give them a bit of work for the new year, instead of having them send out statements telling us we are dummies. Instead of sending out such negative material, they would have positive work to do.
I support this amendment. Having once worked in the Youth Encounter Project school in Cork, I can attest to the benefit of a school having access to a school meals programme, especially in the most disadvantaged areas.
The intent of this amendment not only indicates it should be extended more into rural areas from outside the larger urban areas but consideration should be given to extension of the programme within schools. It needs to be targeted in many ways. Breakfast is the problem in the case of many young people. Attentiveness in school is affected by the lack of taking a first meal of the day never mind food during the course of a school day. I encourage the Minister to continue on the path she has chosen and I ask her to broaden the scope of this programme. There are only four specialised schools using Encounter projects. Schools in other disadvantaged areas would be given the advantage of a food programme that would go beyond one hot meal and would pay particular attention to the first meal of the day which is ignored in many of these circumstances.
I support the amendment. Research undertaken in Britain and other parts of the world suggests that one method of tackling poverty is by giving children one nutritious meal a day. It increases their attention in class.
The Minister stated that last year up to 220,000 pupils in both primary and secondary schools would eventually be included in the scope of a revised school meals programme. She stated that the Estimate would be an extra €15 million which is a substantial sum. It would provide a free meal for students in most disadvantaged schools. The working group supported this proposal. Unfortunately one person who represented the Department of Finance on the working group opted out of the proposal. It is a worthwhile programme and the research proves that it works. If we are serious about tackling poverty, this is one of the ways of doing so. A response can be seen in the attitude of children in school and their attention span. The programme has everything going for it. I accept there is a problem with finding the funding. Like everything else, the record seems to be stuck in the same groove and we seem to be repeating the same refrain of requesting more money. I urge the Minister to look favourably on the programme.
In the heat of the moment I called Deputy Boyle by the wrong name and offer my humblest apologies. He is too young to have been in college with me anyway. I lost the run of myself. I will probably be reading about it in the newspapers. When Deputies provoke me, I call them the wrong names.
The Deputy is correct that it has taken a considerable number of years to have this review completed. The expansion of the school meals programme will be a significant undertaking. I sought assistance in its implementation from the Department of Education and Science. We initially examined in the targeted approach those secondary schools that have the greatest number of early school leavers and their feeder schools. The programme is open to people in rural areas as well as those in urban areas. A number of schools in rural areas have been targeted. It is my view to expand it further with an additional 31 projects this year. It is an excellent scheme and it has been evaluated. We have examined direction with regard to the nutritional aspects of the meals. As I come from a rural area, I was not familiar with the breakfast clubs that are organised in city communities. They are excellent and are of benefit to young people. This school meals project supports the breakfast clubs and children with special needs and other targeted groups.
It is my intention to expand it further with the additional funding that has been provided. I changed the regulations whereby it is now available within the rural areas. The old Gaeltacht scheme has been disbanded for a number of years which means there was a ganntanas and therefore the scheme was expanded from the urban areas into the county council areas. It is my fervent wish that the scheme be expanded further. Without doubt it has given a great boost to young people.
All the research indicates that children need a good healthy breakfast and lifestyle in order to learn. It is my hope to progress this project further over the next number of years and that children who need this support will get it. It is targeted to the schools, not to the children. The sorry lesson was learned from the experience in the United Kingdom where children were ashamed at being targeted to receive a school meal.
It is a worthwhile initiative and programme and I hope to expand it further. Its implementation will take some time. A total of 386 schools with a total of 51,000 pupils will benefit under the urban scheme. A total of 210 schools and voluntary organisations will facilitate approximately 23,500 children. It has expanded and its role will be expanded further. I will be in further consultation with the Department of Education and Science to examine how its initial implementation can be targeted. I reassure Deputies that it is available in rural areas.
Given the commitment by the Minister to the continued expansion of the scheme, I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report contrasting the benefits under the Social Welfare Code, when this Bill is enacted with–
(a) National Anti-Poverty Strategy,
(b) National Children's Strategy,
(c) Health Strategy,
(d) Sustaining Progress, and the Government Programme.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 12 is related to amendment No. 11 and amendment No. 17 is an alternative to amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 17 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the appropriateness of the basket currently used to determine the C.P.I to social welfare recipients; the desirability of preparing, on at least an annual basis, of a separate index based on a basket of items appropriate to such recipients and the cost of preparing such an annual index.".
I raised the issue of the consumer price index on Committee Stage. I made a point about the basket of foodstuffs used by the Department. There is no point putting luxury holidays or cars into the basket because people on social welfare do not have luxury holidays three or four times a year and they do not own big Mercedes cars. I ask the Minister to use a basket of ordinary foodstuffs when compiling the CPI.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are quite similar. We discussed this matter at great length on Committee Stage and I understand Deputy Ring's position. A great amount of information is required to provide the indexation. I appreciate his point about the plethora of things in the basket being quite astronomical. From a statistical point of view my Department is not in a position to provide an additional indicator of the necessities from one house to another. My officials would have a heart attack if I even contemplated doing such a thing. In my view, the CPI measurement is the best way to deal with indexation. I cannot accept the amendment. We have ongoing discussions with the Combat Poverty Agency, the ESRI, the NESF and numerous other organisations to evaluate many of the existing indices. I am not in a position to accept the mantle of the consumer price index. The excellent work done provides a wide-ranging view of consumer goods and services. While it would be difficult to narrow them down, it would be equally difficult to determine what is essential, per se.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be following the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the costs and benefits of extending the school meal programme across the State.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be following the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the merits of the Child Dependent Allowance as a means of tackling child poverty.".
As the Deputy is aware, the interaction between the child dependant allowance and the family income supplement is being evaluated under the initiative to end child poverty. The Deputy's amendment asks me to prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the merits of the child dependant allowance as a means of tackling child poverty. It might be best, however, to await the evaluation of the initiative to end child poverty which will take into consideration the Deputy's wishes in respect of his amendment. I will not change the child dependant allowance, which has not been changed in recent years, until I have had received a fully completed evaluation of the work that is being undertaken in this regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be following the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the progress made towards achieving the targets contained in the National Anti-Poverty Strategy and the measures and increases in payments necessary to achieve those targets by 2007.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be following the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the costs and benefits of the abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall as soon as may be following the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the costs and benefits of automatically index linking welfare payments in line with inflation.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 3, after line 32, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall demonstrate how the preparation of regulations has taken account of:
(a) the targets and timetables, and enhanced implementation strategies set out in the National Anti-Poverty Strategy as revised;
(b) poverty proofing;
(c) gender mainstreaming.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 4, before line 1, to insert the following:
"3.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report setting out the estimated number of people who would benefit from the abolition of the means test associated with the Carer's Allowance.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 4, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"4.–The Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the implications, for the take up of family income supplement, of a proposal that that allowance be paid through the taxation system.".
We discussed the basis of the family income supplement under the taxation system on Committee Stage. It is difficult to make valid comparisons between the family income supplement take-up and the Revenue earnings data. This is because the Revenue data is not broken down by reference to the number of children in a family or the number of hours worked. In addition, most people who require the family income supplement need it on an immediate basis, whereas one must wait a year under the taxation system. That would be detrimental to those who would like to receive the family income supplement.
A working group was established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to examine the role of refundable tax credits within the tax and welfare systems. It examined in particular that to which the Deputy referred, namely,. the potential for paying the family income supplement through the tax system. A range of issues were considered, including refundable tax credits for FIS claimants whose income was below the tax exemption limits, the collection of data on family size, hours worked and spouse's income, as well as the nature of payments and how this impacts on incentives to take up and remain in employment. Following that evaluation, the group concluded that the family income supplement should be paid through my Department. It is a complicated matter but ultimately it was considered that for reasons of immediacy, the best way to make FIS payments was through my Department, given the complexities of the taxation system and the fact that it does not immediately address a particular need.
The taxation can be done through the PRSI system. The Revenue Commissioners are well able to extract tax from people and they know how many children they have. I do not see why it cannot be done like that. The FIS take-up rate is only 30%, which means that some 70% of people who could qualify for the supplement do not do so because they do not want to receive a social welfare payment when they are working. They would much prefer to receive it in back tax at the end of the year. If the will was there, the Department could do that for people on low incomes, but it will not because it is saving the Department a great deal of money.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 5, to delete lines 10 to 13.
This is one of the first of the 16 insidious and mean-spirited cuts we have seen. A number of umbrella organisations, including Hope, have made this point. This cut concerns qualification and linkage. As was said on Committee Stage, it means that, if someone claims unemployment or disability benefit in February 2004 and previously had a claim in August 2003, both are linked. This has an advantage in that one does not have to wait for the three waiting days, as we called them in the old days. However, the disadvantage is that the amount of time one has on benefit is reduced. If one used 26 weeks of unemployment benefit in 2003, because the claim in January 2004 is now linked under the current proposals, one would only have 29 weeks left, whereas if one starts a new claim in January 2004, which is not linked, one would be entitled to 65 weeks UB or 52 weeks if one had fewer than five years' stamps or 260 contributions paid. It will affect people who will be in and out of employment continually.
The linkage could be of advantage to some who are affected by the increase in the basic contribution level from 30 to 52. A total of 275 people are affected by it and it represents a saving of €2 million. That is the extent of it. Nevertheless, it is a decrease which will impact on those 275 people and we will hear about it when those people appear at our clinics. We never recovered, nor did the then Minister, from the previous cuts and it was the cause of that Government losing an election. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, was the author of the "dirty dozen", which we fought tooth and nail, and we will have to fight these 16 cuts in whatever forum and at every opportunity. We are not afraid to nail our colours to the mast and fight them in every way and we intend to run this campaign throughout the country because many people will not be aware of these cuts. It is only when one gets the nip that one realises one has been bitten. That is the problem.
We will be sitting in our clinics snowed under with work and people will ask us why we did not prevent these cuts. I will not divert them to Donegal because it is too far away but I will head them up the road to Kildare.
And to Deputy Cassidy.
I will send them first to Deputy Cassidy.
If the Deputy can find him.
My colleagues are trying to disrupt my train of thought, a Cheann Comhairle. In any event, this is an indication of the bureaucratic nature of a technical adjustment in this case. I hate to mention my own crew but one would almost have to be a barrister or a legal person to interpret the nature of this measure. It is one of those technical measures which drives everybody dealing with social welfare mad, particularly those who will now be caught in the grips of what is a mean-spirited cut.
I support my colleague. We are hoping to get to the other 16 cuts shortly but Deputy Penrose is right. It is not until people begin to be affected by these cuts in the new year that problems will arise. Fianna Fáil backbenchers will be on the plinth again and signing motions to the effect that they did not realise what they had done in the Dáil. They will have an opportunity to correct that in a few minutes because we will oppose it. This is a mean-spirited cut and I call on the Minister at this late stage to withdraw it.
I am supportive of this amendment. It is indicative of the series of cuts introduced in the Book of Estimates. This cut fails to take into account the growing casualisation of the economy from the point of view of the labour market and the fact that people will be drifting in and out in terms of seeking unemployment benefit by the nature of contract work in which they are engaged. It is not that the Minister will make a small saving of €2 million but that proportionately more people will be affected year after year because of the nature of this cut. On those grounds, I support this deletion.
I am not in a position to accept the amendments of those on the opposite side of the House. We had protracted and technical discussions which I am sure all of us would rather not get into—
We clarified the matter and we found out what a Scrooge the Minister was.
From Granuaile to Scrooge, a Cheann Comhairle. I have been doing well in the past hour and a half.
As we all know, the key component of the administration of the benefit system is the concept of continuity in a claim. The notion of linked claims is a key component in how this operates in practice. It is true that linking claims can serve to reduce entitlement to payment over a longer time period as the maximum duration of claims are combined resulting in entitlement to benefit exhausting earlier, for example.
The principal implications of claim linking for the recipient, however, is that he or she retains some or all of the entitlements established during the course of the first claim. For example, retention of previous entitlements may result in payment of unemployment benefit at a higher or lower rate than would have been applied to a new claim. Currently, where a person makes a claim for unemployment or disability benefit within 13 weeks of the end of the previous claim, both claims are linked fully in the case of unemployment benefit and partially in the case of disability benefit.
In a changing labour market and the consequent change in work patterns to short-term, temporary employment, it is considered appropriate that the short-term social welfare schemes should adapt accordingly. The extension of the linking period from 13 to 26 weeks will close the gap within the 52 weeks linking which applies to schemes such as unemployment assistance.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, to delete lines 14 to 38.
This is where the real biting starts in terms of the cuts. Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, contain the real meat of the "savage 16", and I suppose we had to reach them at some stage. There is simply no justification for a significant cut of €56 million.
None.
As we said previously – I do not want to rehash the debate –€70 million was given to the horse racing industry. We are talking about a sense of priorities but somebody is ensuring that those who are in a better off position do not suffer any impact from these cuts. I realise prize money and so on has to increase; I am involved to some extent myself and I know a little about this area. However, we have to prioritise because to those who are at the bottom, every additional two or three euro can make a significant difference.
Coming from my background I am aware of the significance of these cuts, the impact on rent supplement and so on. I read a good article on rent supplement. If reform is needed, so be it. Let it be done on an interdepartmental basis with the local authorities, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. That is joined-up Government, as Deputy Crowe referred to it. Let us get everybody involved on an interdepartmental basis. Some of the groups told us – it may have been Threshold but I am not sure – that we must reform, not retreat on the question of rent supplement.
No matter what is said, the eligibility requirement puts vulnerable people at risk of hardship and homelessness. We are not saying that. Threshold and other groups are saying it, and I understand the Minister met them in the interim since we last spoke to her on Committee Stage. I would like to hear what she has to say now, having heard from those organisations on the ground.
There is no justification for the increase from 39 to 52 in the number of paid social welfare contributions required for entitlement to unemployment benefit, disability benefit and health and safety benefit, nor is there any justification for removing child benefit payments from people whose partners earn more than €300 per week. The removal of three months of unemployment benefit from people who have been paying PRSI for less than five years is especially difficult. Those benefits are paid for by employees and employers. The Government does not contribute one cent to the social insurance fund. It raided the fund in 2002 to pay for its pre-election splurge and promises. In spite of that raid, there is a surplus in the fund.
That is right.
If they knew there would be an even bigger surplus, they would have done an awful job on it.
Charlie will raid it again.
The Government has no moral right to change the rules and restrict the owners of this fund. The employers and employees own the fund and the Government has no moral right to start tampering with it. They should leave it alone. The people who paid into it are the owners of that fund and they are entitled to get their entitlements. Effectively, this amounts to another smash and grab raid on the fund. I repeat that it does not belong to the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs or the Government. It belongs to the people who paid into it.
The Minister might say she has a pain in her head listening to me, and that is fair enough.
She should say something else.
There might be some justification for that if the PRSI rates were reduced for low income workers, but there will be no change. The traps which exist for those on an income level of €287 per week, which is low, will remain and will be felt more extensively when the minimum wage increases in February to €7 per hour. To take the case of two parents who are working and paying their PRSI, if one parent becomes unemployed, he or she cannot now get a payment for the children because they are only dependent on the other parent. People in this position can legitimately ask why they are paying PRSI on both incomes. Why do we have an individual contribution system and a couple based benefit system?
Has the Department made any progress in deciding how the system should develop in the future? Why do we lurch from year to year making cuts here and there, while making virtually no structural improvements and with no concept of where the system should be in the future. I invite the Minister to present to the House blueprints for the social welfare system for the next ten to 15 years showing how she intends to deal with its anomalies, make it inclusive and ensure Deputies will not be pointing out further poverty traps and exclusions in ten years and having to give our constituents history lessons to explain the reason they do not qualify for a payment.
The exclusion of spouses from the social welfare allowance will have a significant effect on families in the small number of cases in which it is applied. Let us take the example of a family with three children where the husband is in low paid employment earning €300 per week and which is renting a house. If the wife applies for social welfare allowance, the family could receive rent supplement because the household limit is €317. When this is withdrawn, the husband will have no option but to give up work and go on to welfare permanently. The measure will propel people into a poverty trap.
Deputy Boyle made an interesting remark on poverty proofing policies, an issue I frequently address. As I do not want to take the freedom of information route, I will fight the Minster on the floor of the House to find out the reason the data in this regard are never produced. Where is the poverty proofing? Will the Department produce evidence to show how and by what means policies are poverty proofed against unemployment and poverty traps, such as those which will be created as a result of the Minister's mean-spirited, niggardly cuts? These cuts have captured a group of people who need to be helped, given a leg up and pushed the extra couple of yards into sustainable employment, from which they can progress.
These are the reasons we vehemently oppose sections 9 to 12, inclusive. We must fight to reverse the measures on diet supplements and the MIAB and the exclusion of spouses from social welfare allowance. We must find the €56 million and put it back into the pot. While it may, as the Minister stated, amount to a small sum the context of a budget of €11.2 billion, it is vital to the people who receive it. This is the reason we ask the Minister to accept these amendments, which have been made in the spirit of inclusiveness.
I will address the nub of the Bill and its savage cuts. The Minister may smile but they are savage. The amendments attempt to reverse the attack on the contributions paid by workers. The reduction in the maximum duration of unemployment benefit from 390 days to 312 days is a cut. The number of paid contributions will increase from 39 to 52 and the period in which claims for unemployment benefit and disability benefit are linked to a previous claim will increase from 13 to 26 weeks. These three measures will diminish the rights of working people who have paid contributions.
The worst of the Minister's cutbacks is the measure restricting rent assistance, which is deplorable. As I stated on Committee Stage, the Minister has been led up the garden path by her officials. Her proposals were not considered or examined. When the Minister for Finance informed her he wanted savings of €58 million and these proposals were placed before her, she ran with them without teasing them out.
It is a scandal that following their meeting with the Minister, the community welfare officers, who are the Minister's officials, wrote that the proposals will cause administrative chaos in the local authorities and make people homeless, yet the Minister has not changed them. This is despicable given that the numbers on housing lists have doubled from 27,000 to more than 50,000 since the Government took office. The Minister expects people to wait for six months before applying for rent supplement from the community welfare officer. She has told them they can go to the housing officer of the local authority, as if they will somehow be able to give them a house.
We have huge waiting lists throughout the country. The Labour Party demands that anybody on the housing list will be considered for rent supplement.
I have agreed to that.
She agreed to it because the Labour Party and other Opposition parties have confronted her on this issue and told her clearly that this is another scandal.
That is not the reason.
We demand that the Minister gives the House a specific commitment that anybody on the housing list will be considered for rent supplement. We also want the concerns expressed by the community welfare officers to be taken on board. The 16 cuts are an attack on vulnerable people, namely, the disabled and social welfare recipients.
Having spoken to community welfare officers, I will not hesitate to say the system is abused. I do not know whether abuse takes place in 1% or 50% of cases. None of the Minister's measures have anything to do with establishing a process for dealing with alleged abuse. Instead of addressing the issue, she has introduced measures which will hit ordinary people with no home over their heads and no hope of getting a house.
I remind the Deputy that we are discussing section 9, which deals with disability benefits, health and safety benefit and unemployment benefit. In fairness to other Members who may wish to contribute on the amendments, I ask the Deputy to address the section or give way.
I am contributing on the section. The Minister is standing over what she has done. She should take on her officials and the Minister for Finance.
The social insurance fund is in credit to the tune of €1,500 million.
The Deputy is incorrect – the true figure is €1,628 million.
Why has the Minister introduced this measure for the sake of saving €2.5 million? The social insurance fund is an insurance scheme, which operates in a similar manner to car insurance, where companies are expected to honour policies and pay claims, whether it be for windscreen breakages or whatever. What has the Minister done? Why is she taking so much pressure and getting so much flak throughout the country for €2.5 million? In 2002 the Minister for Finance, the man from Kildare who wears the white shirt, took €650 million to balance the books before the election. This is now going to be the election fund because with €1,500 million the social insurance fund will be raided again close to the time of the election. The public will be told: "This is your money. We are spending it now instead of in the future." This is wrong.
I would not have minded if the Minister was taking the €57 million that caused her so much criticism – as Deputy Ryan has said, the rent supplement, the crèche supplement and all of the 16 cutbacks. If it would have saved the Minister's face, I would have supported it on the basis—
That would have been something.
I would have supported that and it would not have caused a row in this House if they took €57 million out of the social insurance fund. However, it is wrong. As the Ceann Comhairle has said, this Bill deals with disability benefit, invalid pension, maternity benefit, etc. This is money paid for by people into their own fund and it is wrong. I know the Minister will say this is only going to affect new people. However, it is going to affect people already in the scheme who might get sick and who will not qualify at a later stage. I am not going to talk about the 16 cuts. I am only disappointed we did not get to the next amendment, as regards what has happened, although we may still get to it.
Do Members know how much interest the Government got on that fund last year? The Minister did not give us that figure.
How much is it?
It is €40 million. That is how much it got in interest and it is now taking out €2.5 million—
Another €20 million and she was saved.
—and the number of people it is going to affect. I cannot understand what is going on, but I know this is going to be the slush fund for the PD-Fianna Fáil election alliance. I do not know who is leading this Government now. It looks like the Progressive Democrats because they have the right-wing policies. They have no social conscience. Will the Minister say why it is necessary to get herself into so much trouble for €2.5 million? What is the plan? The way she is going about it is wrong. It is going to affect many people. I do not like the fact that people who are paying into the scheme are being affected. People are paying their social insurance and it is wrong that they are being affected in this way to save €2.5 million.
I agree with the other speakers. These amendments are an attempt to try to stop these cuts. They are cuts that in some cases, as Deputy Ryan said, affect working people who have worked for their rightful entitlements. These are being undermined. Other speakers referred to rent assistance and the effect that is going to have. No matter what the Minister says, Members will get people in their clinics who will have left home, whatever their unfortunate circumstances, and find themselves in crisis situations. Community welfare officers will be contacted who will respond that they are working within guidelines. Members will have to try to use persuasion so that people may be allowed into accommodation. Some of them will have left abusive homes or whatever. Deputies will have dealt with such cases down through the years.
These cuts are wrong in an equitable society where the objective is to narrow the gap between rich and poor. However, the Minister and people on the Government benches will insist these are positive initiatives. They are not positive. They attack the new poor in society, the people on the margins, on low incomes, the working poor, etc. These groups will suffer from these cuts. Behind the cuts is the mindset that the system is being abused. We have heard this for years. One can make a comparison between these cuts and what is happening to the rich in society. Are similar cuts being imposed on the people who make millions in profits from investing in offshore accounts and so on? There is no equivalent savage attack on those elements of society. It is always the most vulnerable, the ones that the media find most popular to attack in terms of abuses in the system. The amount of social welfare abuse is infinitesimal by comparison to white collar crime. These amendments are being put forward in an attempt to give a different vision of how society should progress. Unfortunately, we are not going to win this vote, but we are putting on record that these initiatives are the wrong direction for society to take. It is widening the gap between rich and poor and it is making things more difficult for working people.
Historically the social insurance fund has not been in surplus. It has had many of its payments made by taxation and there might even be an argument that the current surplus should go into the general taxation account to make those payments. There is €1.5 billion in the fund and the fact the Government is adding to it in this budget by raising the ceiling and by having PRSI reckonable in terms of benefits-in-kind means there is a slush fund available for future use. In that context €56 million in cuts are being made, only in a book-keeping sense. If there was an argument that resources were being targeted it might be acceptable. There is no evidence that resources are being targeted. If there was an argument that the system was being reformed, it might be acceptable. There is no evidence of reform of the system. There seems to have been a quid pro quo that if a Department was to get any increase in any category it had to come with the €56 million in cuts first. That is not an acceptable way to put an Estimate together or to present a Social Welfare Bill to this House. On all these grounds the Opposition is united in opposing what is proposed within the Bill.
It is important to focus again on what is involved in the amendment under discussion. The Minister is changing the criteria under which people can qualify for unemployment or disability benefit. She is changing the criteria by which a person uses his or her stamps to get a payment when it is needed most, at times of sickness, unemployment or whatever. Up to now one could get that payment on the basis of having paid 39 weeks in the relevant tax year.
Since it started, one does not have to have them in the one year.
This is going to kick in next year. Therefore, the relevant tax year is going to be 2002. Anyone who was out sick for a couple of weeks in 2002 and who may have to be out for a prolonged period, will not get this payment if he or she does not have the 52 stamps for 2002. That is what the Minister is saying.
A person does not need to have 52 stamps in one calendar year. It is just in a year.
It says an increase from 39 to 52 in the number of paid insurance contributions required for entitlement to unemployment benefit, disability benefit and health and safety. This provision will come into force on 5 April.
I would like to clarify that one does not need the 52 contributions in one year. It is just whenever one starts work. One may not need to claim for five years.
I phoned the relevant section of the Minister's Department the other day and asked officials about this. They interpreted it for me as I have just outlined it to the House. If that is the case it is going to have enormous consequences for a vast array of people. When it is considered that it is only going to save €2.5 million, in effect it means only about 2,000 people will be affected by it. It is going to have far more serious consequences than this.
As it is now 5.30 p.m., I am obliged to put the question.
Perhaps the Minister will put her comments on record because there is confusion about this. We will be fighting about it after April when this awful cutback comes into effect. We wish to ensure that we have got this right and it is important that the Minister put it on the record.
It is 52.
I am obliged to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán. |
Tá– continuedHoctor, Máire.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.
Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.
Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.
McDaid, James.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O'Connor, Charlie.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donnell, Liz.
O'Donovan, Denis.
O'Flynn, Noel.
O'Keeffe, Batt.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Malley, Fiona.
O'Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.
Power, Peter.
Roche, Dick.
Ryan, Eoin.
Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Wilkinson, Ollie.
Woods, Michael.
Wright, G.V.
Níl
Boyle, Dan.
Breen, James.
Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard.
Connaughton, Paul.
Connolly, Paudge.
Coveney, Simon.
Cowley, Jerry.
Crawford, Seymour.
Crowe, Seán.
Cuffe, Ciarán.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.
Ferris, Martin.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Gormley, John.
Gregory, Tony.
Harkin, Marian.
Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D.
Hogan, Phil.
Lynch, Kathleen.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Paul.
McHugh, Paddy.
McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Gay.
Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.
Murphy, Gerard.
Naughten, Denis.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O'Dowd, Fergus.
O'Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.
Penrose, Willie.
Quinn, Ruairi.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Eamon.
Ryan, Seán.
Sargent, Trevor.
Sherlock, Joe.
Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.
Timmins, Billy.
Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.