Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 23 Mar 2004

Vol. 582 No. 3

Private Members’ Business.

Social Welfare Cuts: Motion.

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann:

— noting that there are approximately 120,000 persons in receipt of contributory or non-contributory widow/er's pensions;

— conscious of the enormous social and financial difficulties that they face following the loss of a spouse and that many are forced to work in order to provide for the welfare and education of their families;

— deplores the decision of the Government to end the entitlement of this group of recipients to the additional half-rate payment of disability benefit, injury benefit and unemployment benefit as part of the savage sixteen social welfare cuts, which was based on the social insurance contribution they had paid;

— further deplores the decision to apply these cuts to those on lone parent payments;

— notes that while the cutback will create severe difficulties for widow/ers and lone parents, the saving to the Government will be less than €6 million;

— calls for the reversal of this mean and miserly cut especially against the background of positive exchequer returns for the first two months of this year, which show tax returns running €430 million above the level forecast, and

— urges the Government to give a commitment to the early extension of the social welfare free schemes to widow/ers who do not currently quality."

Is the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, coming to the House?

I will pass on the Deputy's comments to her.

She should be present.

I am disappointed the Minister is not here, as this is an important issue. I presume she will arrive.

Ar aghaidh leat, a Theachta.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Ring and Boyle.

That is agreed.

This motion has been tabled by the Labour Party in co-operation with our colleagues in Fine Gael and the Green parties, whom we thank for their support.

The number of people directly affected by this motion is quite small, perhaps not much more than about 2,000. The amount of money involved is tiny when compared to Government expenditure of more than €40 billion in this current year. However, the issue involved is of crucial importance and goes to the heart of determining the sort of society we want to create. The issue involved raises questions about the degree of financial and other support we are prepared to give to the most vulnerable in our society. It raises questions about who should be asked to suffer when a Government decides that, for whatever reason, savings have to be made and cutbacks imposed.

Members may recall that on 13 November last the army of Government advisers and spin doctors was mobilised for the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to publish the Book of Estimates at a press conference in Government Buildings. The Government announced spending of €40 billion for 2004 and, unlike the previous years, there were few cutbacks so the Government was determined to milk it for all the positive publicity it could. However, at the same time this was happening, across on the other side of the city the Minister for Social and Family Affairs was slipping out an announcement of a series of very significant changes in the social welfare system. In the mass of media coverage of the Book of Estimates, this announcement received very little attention. On the day the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, made her statement, I identified it, on behalf of the Labour Party, as a serious attack on the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of our society. There were 16 cutbacks announced and I said these savage 16 were every bit as vicious and nasty as the infamous dirty dozen cuts that had been imposed by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, when he was Minister for Social Welfare in the early 1990s. What, I asked, were we to make of the mind set of a Government that continued to provide generous tax breaks for its wealthy supporters, while singling out children, the unemployed, one parent families, the disabled and other vulnerable sectors for cutbacks? I went on the warn the Government that these cuts would be the slow-burner of the Estimates and the decisions announced by the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, would, in turn, come back to haunt her backbenchers.

While the primary focus of our motion is the plight of widows, widowers and lone parents, it is important to remind the House that the savage 16 cutbacks impacted on a whole range of social welfare recipients and a significant number of entitlements. There were cuts in supplementary welfare allowance, for those with special dietary needs and in crèche payments. Restrictions were imposed on the entitlement to rent supplement, which has created severe difficulties, especially for lone parents and others hoping to start their own homes. However, the decision of the Government to end the entitlement of widows, widowers and lone parents to the half-rate payment of disability benefit, injury benefit and unemployment is one of the meanest and most unnecessary of the savage 16 social welfare cuts announced by Minister, Deputy Coughlan, last November.

The Labour Party made a major effort to highlight the impact of these cuts. We held a press conference to highlight our concern about them. We launched a campaign against them and printed and distributed more than 50,000 leaflets. However, despite our best efforts, and the valiant efforts of many community and voluntary organisations, many social welfare recipients were unaware of their impact, until the necessary ministerial orders were made in January and last month and the cuts began to bite. That is exactly what has happened in regard to working widows and lone parents, who have been paying their social welfare contributions and who now suddenly find that the financial safety net they previously enjoyed if they lost their jobs or fell ill, is no longer available.

It is difficult to think of a meaner or more spiteful cut than the one that is the subject of this motion. The loss of a spouse is a traumatic event that can place enormous social and financial pressure on the surviving partner. Not only is the surviving partner left alone to cope, but now he or she must find the money and resources to provide for the education and welfare of his or her family. The widow's pension is so modest that, even if the person wanted to remain full time in the home, many have no option but work to provide for the welfare and education of their families. It is almost beyond belief that these people, who should be supported in every possible way, are instead targeted by the Government for a cutback. It is now clear that there was no financial justification for this cutback which will save the Government less than €6 million this year.

When she came under pressure on "Morning Ireland" towards the end of last year, shortly after the publication of the Estimates, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, said she had no alternative but to impose these cuts as she had been instructed by the Department of Finance to find cutbacks of €56 million. This is the same Minister and Department of Finance which had the Minister for Social Welfare preside over the dirty dozen cuts back in 1992 when the Minister tried to emasculate the social welfare system then, but he did not succeed because when we returned to Government we reversed most of those cuts. However, revenge was taken with an axe in the context of these cuts we are debating.

We now know the Government was in a far stronger financial position than it was prepared to admit at the time of the Estimates or the Budget. Within weeks of the announcement of the savage 16 cuts we had end of year financial returns, which showed that borrowing last year was almost €900 million below the projected level and that tax revenues were almost €450 million ahead of target. When one puts the two together, there was €1.35 billion. The Exchequer returns for the first two months of this year show that the situation has improved even more dramatically since then.

At the end of February, just two months into the year, the tax take was already running more than €430 million ahead of target.

Here, here.

In other words, in the first two months of this year the Government has already taken in eight times more in additional tax revenue than the €56 million it will save by the imposition of the savage 16 cuts and more than 70 times the amount it will save by penalising working widows and lone parents. Even if the Government had decided that cutbacks were necessary — the figures I quoted show they were not — surely there were many other groups in Irish society who could have been asked to make the sacrifice required rather than asking widows to make the ultimate sacrifice. For instance, the Government could have reviewed the €100,000 per day it pays out for consultants. If the Government dispensed with the services of consultants for just two months, it would have provided the money necessary to avoid penalising widows, widowers and lone parents.

The Government could have decided to review the amount of taxpayers money spent on property-based capital allowances, which allowed the top 400 earners in the State to avail of tax benefits worth €70million.

Here, here.

If one asked any ordinary taxpayer if he or she would prefer his or her hard earned taxes going to provide a little protection for widows or to feather-bed the super-rich, I have no doubt what answer one would get.

Here, here.

It is not too late for the Minister to revisit this issue and do a U-turn. The Committee on Social and Family Affairs, of which I am chairperson, prepared a detailed report on carers and it brought forward 15 recommendations. One of the central recommendations was that widows and widowers who are providing essential care for their elderly relatives or a young person who is handicapped, would get half the carer's allowance paid to them. This means that report has already been consigned to the dustbin because widows and widowers who have paid their contributions cannot get the half rate to which they are entitled. What chance do they have of getting one penny of the carer's allowance from this ideologically-driven, right of centre Government? This is in the context of the millions of euro widows, widowers and lone parents save by providing care for their loved ones who are incapacitated or suffering from a long-term illness.

According to my correspondence, the people affected by this sneaky and sly cut do not want sympathy. They want back what they paid in. They have paid their PRSI. This is not a charity. The PRSI fund is a contract between employers and employees. The Government has already raided the fund in order to feather-bed its election campaign. The Government has no right to take money from the fund and still deny widows, widowers and lone parents what they are fully entitled to. It is a contractual obligation and I wonder, in law, if one can unilaterally change the terms of a contract which was entered into six or seven years ago.

The Minister is under pressure from her backbenchers this evening. The Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste and others impose massive cuts on those least able to bear them and are always the focus of their attention. I ask for nothing more than a recognition of the contributions these people have made into the social fund which is sacrosanct. This is what widows and widowers are looking for.

The Minister must surely appreciate that for the sake of €5.8 million, this cut is having a significant impact on the people affected. What is especially noteworthy is the reaction of the general public who are bewildered and bemused that such a measly cut should be implemented at a time of apparent plenty and with great manifestations of wealth — when people can jump into helicopters and go wherever they want and are well featherbedded with generous tax reliefs. The people have expressed themselves on the radio in the past fortnight and they have made their voices heard about the cut. In their view, it is an injustice which must be remedied. The cut has the effect of perpetrating an injustice against the most vulnerable who have made their appropriate contributions and feel entitled to their payments as of right.

The Labour Party has always stated that when the insidious nature of these cuts impacted at individual level, they would provoke the wrath and ire of those upon whom they impacted. As I stated in my contribution to the House on 11 March 2004 when we debated this matter, this issue has erupted like a volcano and it will not rest until this cut is rescinded and the benefit restored to widows, widowers and lone parents who are duly entitled to it.

It is not too late for the Minister to do a U-turn on the issue. She would not by the first to do so. She should do the decent thing by reversing this cut and beginning a full review of all the "savage 16" social welfare cuts.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Since I came into this House in 1994, I have seen many debates and people angry about many issues. A widow of 57 years of age came to me in my office yesterday. She does not get free schemes. She raised a family of children when her partner died. She worked and at times had to leave work simply because there was none to do. Some weeks ago she went to the local social welfare office and was told that she would no longer receive her "stamp money" or PRSI as we now call it. This is an attack on the most vulnerable in society. It is an attack on the weakest.

In a newspaper on 14 March I read an article which stated, "Magnier gets €4 million a year from one horse" and "shares in stallions pay €17 million in dividends". That is what people think about the horse industry in Ireland — they do not pay one penny in tax. Some 400 Irish people live abroad — they fly in and out and use this country. They do not pay a penny in tax to this country and are not being policed by anyone because we do not know whether they are here or abroad. However, we know they have not subscribed one penny to the taxpayers of this country. They are not helping the widowers, widows, lone parent or people on social welfare. These are the people the Government has looked after week in, week out, month in, month out. It is a disgrace.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

A woman came to my clinic yesterday and I do not like to say this but she asked if I knew the Minister, to which I answered that I did and that she was a nice person. However, the woman replied that the Minister is so mean she makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus. The Minister should know that people are angry.

Sometimes we complain about RTE and other radio stations. However, I compliment "Liveline" and Joe Duffy for having people tell their stories on air. There was one sad story after another. It annoys me that we are saving just €5.8 million through this cut and we are attacking the most vulnerable in society — the forgotten people who are the widows and widowers who have been let down over the years by not being looked after.

Deputy Penrose referred to the free schemes. The 57 year old woman who visited me yesterday told me that she now has to live on a widow's pension and does not get the free schemes. Should she not get the free schemes? Is she not entitled to be looked after as well as the 400 rich people living in Spain and Malta rather than in Ireland? It is outrageous.

I do not want to hear hypocrisy from the Government backbenchers telling us how sorry they are when they are doing nothing within the parliamentary party or on the backbenches to have this issue resolved. It is a wonder they are not out on the plinth this evening.

Where are the backbenchers?

Where are they tonight? A fortnight ago, Deputy Penrose and I forced them into a vote in the House on this issue. Tomorrow night we will give them a third opportunity to do so. Members of Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and some of the Independents — the hypocrites who support Fianna Fáil on a day-to-day basis — need to come out and we need to see how they vote tomorrow night. I am sick and tired of them supporting the Government.

I hope the Deputy is not referring to me.

I am talking about the Independent Deputies who vote with the Government every time. They call themselves Independents but I am more independent and I am in a political party.

That is true.

No truer words spoken.

This is not a big decision for the Minister. She saved just €5.8 million. As Deputy Penrose stated, the Minister announced this cut and two weeks later the spin doctors went to work on it. Between 2000 and 2002, we spent €100 million on spin doctors. They are spinning and spinning and spinning and if one complains about them, one gets a letter from the Ceann Comhairle. They do not like to be named or mentioned although they do not mind throwing dirt when they want to.

The social insurance fund was raided two years ago by the Government before the general election. It took €600 million of widowers' money and the money of this country's workers to pay for the election. That fund is in credit to €1.4 billion and the Government has taken €5.8 million away from widows and widowers. Who needs it most? Is it McCreevy, Magnier or Alex Ferguson? We saw the big row over the past two months. They were going to the High Court and Supreme Court in a fight over horses. The members of the Government do not give two damns about the poor people of the country. They have been consistent in that they have attacked them every seek since they came to office. They have made the rich richer, the poor poorer and they are squeezing the middle class.

When the Minister speaks, I hope she will do the honourable thing and admit that the Government has made a mistake and done something wrong.

This is nothing to laugh at.

The Minister should apologise to the widows and widowers of the country and announce her intention to redress the wrong that has been done. It will only cost €5.8 million. If she does this, the Opposition will say: "Well done, Minister, you have done the right thing". There will be no hard feelings.

Why has the Government angered so many people? Sons and daughters of widows and widowers know how much their parents worked to raise their families. Now, when they most need help, they are attacked by the Government while the super rich get away with murder.

We heard promises with regard to medical cards. Before the previous general election, we were told that 300,000 extra medical cards would be made available to the poor. What did we get? After three years, 47,000 fewer people have medical cards. The Minister and her public relations team meet groups which represent the weak and poor. She tells them that she understands their problems and will try to deal with them while her spin doctors are busy sending out press releases. The minute she goes behind closed doors, she introduces social welfare cuts. The person in her Department who thought up the dirty 16 should be sent to somewhere such as Vietnam because they could not live in a civilised society.

Decentralisation is bad enough without sending civil servants to Vietnam.

The Government is spending €40 million on electronic voting which no one wants. The Punchestown equestrian centre received €15 million without even completing an application form because the horsey people involved are friends of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. In Kerry, €350,000 was spent on a marina which was built on the wrong site and had to be removed. These are the people who are taking €5.8 million from widows and widowers.

The programme managers are the people I dislike most.

There is no such thing any more.

The Minister will probably announce this evening that she has commissioned another consultant's report from a friend of Fianna Fáil. This will continue until two weeks before the general election when she will announce that she will deal with the matter after the election.

She will set up an implementation committee.

The people have had enough. It is my duty to help the people in need. Members of the Select Committee on Social and Family Affairs, including Deputy Penrose and I, fought against the 16 savage cutbacks in the Social Welfare Bill, including the cutbacks in rent allowance, assistance to crèches and all the little cutbacks which affect a small minority of people.

Will the Government leave the widows and widowers alone and, instead, tackle the 400 tax dodgers who have left the State? The Minister should give back to widows and widowers their €5.8 million. They find it difficult enough to live and raise their families.

Fianna Fáil backbenchers should not shed crocodile tears. Progressive Democrats Members do not even think it worth their while to be in the House. I ask them to vote with the Opposition to reverse this nasty, dirty and mean cut. We do not want to hear about all the money they spent since 1997.

Let us compare the price of a loaf of bread in 1997 with the price today. ESB charges have risen by more than 25% in the past year. People on low incomes find life difficult and voluntary organisation inform the Minister of these problems every day. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has never had as many calls for help as it had this year.

The Minister has made a mistake. She was led up the garden path by her officials and the Minister for Finance. That Minister, Deputy McCreevy, has looked after the horseracing industry. Will the Minister for Social and Family Affairs look after the poor and the weak? She should look after the widows and widowers who supported their families and did not let them down. I say shame on the Government for letting down the widows and widowers of the country.

The Minister can feel slightly more comfortable now that she has been joined by three of the 87 Members on the Government side, although there is no representative in the Chamber of the "no such thing as society" party. This speaks volumes for the Government and for the nastiness and vindictiveness of this cut which is deserving of so much opprobrium from this side of the House and from the wider society.

The Green Party is pleased to agree to the moving of this motion and thanks the Labour Party for making its Private Members' time available to have it debated in the House. This is the first debate on a three party opposition motion since the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. I remind the House of the last line of the speech by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to that Ard-Fheis. He said: "We have had the pain; let us share the gain". This encapsulates the philosophy of the Government and begs a series of questions. Who is meant to suffer the pain, who has suffered it and who is to achieve the gain? Of the savage 16 social welfare cuts, this one identifies clearly those who are most likely to suffer the pain which has been inflicted by the Government and who are least able to do so. On those grounds alone, we must oppose the Minister's actions with all the vehemence we can muster.

It is not only widows and widowers who are affected by this cut. Lone parents can no longer enjoy — a bad choice of word — half-rate disability or unemployment benefit. At the heart of the Minister's Department there appears to be a double jeopardy rule. A single social welfare payment, inadequate as those payments are, is deemed to be enough for any citizen. Any means related or social insurance related benefit added on to that must be ignored, even when it is a carer's allowance or a benefit to which the recipient has contributed. Not only is this a cut that was made mistakenly, it is a philosophical cut which the Minister and the Government have made deliberately because they do not believe in the idea of anything other than the deserving poor and people who deserve a social welfare system on the basis of how they contribute and have contributed to our society.

On the other side of the equation, we see those who have enjoyed the gain. Those people have not been asked to share the pain of any of the policies implemented by the Government. We see the growing disparity between rich and poor. We see a tax system which rewards people for owning property and for having capital yet penalises people who need social welfare as a cushion or as a crutch, as do many of the families affected by this payment cut. Our society is limping because of the Government's social welfare policy.

I regret that the Minister is failing the people she is meant to represent at the Cabinet table. As regards discussions on the Book of Estimates, the Minister is responsible for social and family affairs. She must ensure that the people's entitlements are not only recognised in terms of changing social realities, particularly in terms of keeping pace with rising costs, but also protected. The Minister has introduced only her second set of Estimates, but she has failed this important sector of society. I await the Minister's argument on behalf of the Government as to how such a cut is necessary and why it should be sustained. This cut cannot be justified.

As regards the monetary cost, it is not even one third of the cost of the Punchestown racecourse event centre, which the Government seemed to be able to put through on a nod. It is a fraction of the cost the Department lost through faulty IT systems in recent years. When the Minister makes such decisions as part of the stewardship of her Department, she must take responsibility. The Government must also take responsibility for the likely effects.

As regards the aftermath of the decisions the Minister made and her justification for them, one thing the Department failed to do was to analyse the effects of the cuts. The Minister did not seek to examine how they would affect widows and widowers or how the cut in supplementary welfare benefit would affect the increasing numbers of homeless people. She did not examine how the cut in crèche benefit would affect lone parents who have been hit two or three times by the series of cuts the Minister introduced at the end of November. She did not consider how those caught in a poverty trap could use innovative schemes, such as the back to education scheme, to find a route out of the darkness in which they find themselves. The Minister closed that door in the face of many people in our society when she introduced that series of cuts in the Book of Estimates. Some of them are here this evening, while many more are outside the Chamber. I hope the Minister shows some compassion because I have given up hope that the Government has any. The junior partners in Government lack compassion.

We are talking about more than economics or book-keeping exercises; we are talking about the way people in society relate to each other. We should have values as a society. Part of that is encapsulated in the way we structure our social support systems. Not only is the Minister making savings, she has created a domino effect in terms of how those cuts impact on individuals and families in our society. The Minister must respond to the criticism and she must put measures in place which can restore the public's badly-dented confidence in our social welfare system. I hope the Minister can do that.

The Minister has a difficult role to play in the Government because social welfare is not part of its policy agenda. The Government has one eye on the next election. It is not concerned about the interests of the citizens of this country but about accumulating a war chest which can be used to buy the next election, in the same way as it bought the last election. However, elections are not bought with pounds, shillings, pence, euro or cent. Elections must also reflect our values as a society. The Minister has shown herself to be sadly lacking in this area.

The Minister is now supported by nine backbenchers.

It is more than the Deputy has.

The Opposition must be having some effect, although I notice the doughnut effect on the Government benches.

That is why the country is questioning who constitutes the Opposition.

Deputy Boyle, without interruption.

Rather than having full Government benches, a strategic area around the Minister is suitably filled with Deputies. I congratulate the assistant Whip, Deputy Kelleher, for giving credence to the fact that the Government supports its Minister. Whatever about the representation of Government backbenchers in the Chamber this evening, the absence of everyone else speaks volumes. The whispers and private conversations of many on the Government benches show they are unhappy with these cuts. They must find it difficult to justify these cuts in their constituencies.

That is par for the course.

Allow Deputy Boyle to continue without interruption.

We are well used to Government backbenchers saying one thing on the plinth and something else in their constituencies. This motion is about the Government backbenchers standing tall and being proud of a policy which reduces many in our society to also-rans and which states that their halfway payment is a step too far. If the Government backbenchers are prepared to do that tomorrow night, they will do well. However, they will get one answer in the local and European elections on 11 June and a further answer in the general election in a number of years. The Government cannot sustain such bullying. As a party, Fianna Fáil used to boast about such values. However, it has left them behind in the same way it left behind the three national values which were part of that party when it was established.

The Minister did not carry out an analysis at the beginning of this exercise on the effect of these cuts on widows, widowers, lone parents and those in need of accommodation and crèche facilities.

Who told the Deputy that?

If the Minister did, I would like to hear the result. From reading the Minister's replies in the Dáil, she does not seem to have carried out or to be in the process of carrying out any analysis of the impact of these cuts. If she had done that, she would see the effect these cuts will have on people's lives. There does not seem to be any analysis of how many more people will be made homeless as a result of the changes to the supplementary rent allowance, how many more people will not be able to put their children into crèches or how many more people will not be able to avail of the back to education allowance scheme. The Minister has not asked those questions because she and the Government do not want to know the answers.

I answered a parliamentary question from one of the Deputy's colleagues on that issue today.

Allow Deputy Boyle to continue.

I refer to that question which had an unsatisfactory answer.

How does the Deputy know that, given that he did not read it?

This cut, which is only one of the 16 the Minister introduced, will have a visible effect. The Minister has received an answer, which is unacceptable as far as she is concerned, regarding the consequences about which the Opposition is concerned. These consequences are like a train coming through a tunnel. Perhaps because of naivety or inexperience, the Minister allowed herself to be politically brow-beaten by others in the Cabinet who are ideologically driven. They have caused unnecessary concern in our society. The Minister has one opportunity to redress that balance and I hope she avails of it. If she does, she will find support on this side of the House. I fear that the Members around her now and those who are absent will not offer her that support. However, people elsewhere in this Chamber and outside the Chamber need such a decision to be made.

Gabhaigí mo leithscéal, a Cheann Comhairle agus a Theachtaí. Bhí mé beagnach mall, mar bhí cruinniú agam leis an Widows Association.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"— notes the measure announced in November 2003 and introduced in the context of the Estimates for 2004 to discontinue entitlement to an additional half rate payment of some benefits where the recipient is already in receipt of widow/er's pensions, lone parent payments etc., for new claimants;

— notes that only a small fraction of the approximately 120,000 persons in receipt of contributory and non-contributory widow/er's pensions will be affected by the measure as it will not have an impact on those over 66 years of age and existing claimants;

— welcomes the Government's ongoing recognition of the particular difficulties facing people following the loss of a spouse and notes the improvements provided in recent years including:

— the substantial increase since 1997 of over 85% in the widow/er's contributory pension for those over 66 years, increasing the rate to €167.30;

— an increase of over 55% in the widow/er's contributory pension for those under 66 years, increasing the rate to €140.30;

— the introduction of a widowed parent grant in 1999 which was increased in budget 2004 to €2,700;

— notes that while only 7% of persons in receipt of widow/er's pension have dependant children the Government has increased substantially the support for children in the form of child benefit;

— notes in addition the special allowances provided in respect of widows/widowers, that is,

— that substantial special tax allowances are provided for widows/ers with children in the three year period following bereavement;

— that widow/ers pensioners are not liable to pay any social insurance contributions on their pension income;

— that widow/ers pensioners who are working are only liable to pay employee's social insurance contributions if their income from employment exceeds €287 per week;

— that widow/ers pensioners who are working are not liable for the 2% health contribution as is the case with other workers; and

— commends the Government's prudent management of the public finances which has allowed for a record allocation of €11.62 billion this year to provide real increases in social welfare payments and notes the Government's intention to make further improvements in the widow's/widower's pension in line with the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government and in Sustaining Progress."

When we came into office in 1997, the level of spending on social welfare was €5.7 billion. This year, the Estimates provide for total spending of well over €11 billion, a doubling of social welfare expenditure over this period.

Since 1997, our country has undergone a transformation and this has been reflected in the substantial increase in national resources which are set aside for social protection. We have seen tangible results from this investment as the percentage of persons who are experiencing poverty has continued to fall. Real increases in social welfare payments have improved the buying power of pensioners and changes to eligibility for benefit have facilitated persons if they choose to take up paid employment. This major investment in social policy has been helped by a strong economic engine and by our clear vision for the future but we have not achieved it by weakening our commitment to sustaining economic growth and maintaining full employment. Low inflation, responsible fiscal policies and effective investment policies are central to this strategy.

However, our efforts have not been confined to economic improvements alone. They also encompass major improvements in social protection programmes.

On a point of order, can the Minister's speech be circulated?

Is the spin doctor on holidays?

It has just been completed.

I hope it is not changed.

It will not be changed because whatever I have to say will be said in this House.

The widows know that too.

It is often said that the success of a country can be measured by the way in which it cares for those less well off in society. This Government is investing record sums in the health and welfare of citizens. Spending on health, education and social welfare, for example, will now account for two thirds of total Government spending this year. At more than €10 billion in 2004, spending on health will have increased by €6.4 billion or 178% since 1997. Spending on education will amount to €6.5 billion in 2004, representing an increase of €3.3 billion or a doubling of expenditure since 1997.

The Estimates for the Department of Social and Family Affairs announced last November, in the context of restricted public finances, included a number of provisions to better target resources within the social welfare code. These provisions afforded scope for resources to be found for general improvements in social welfare provision and to copper fasten supports and increased payments for those less well off, disadvantaged, ill or unemployed.

The Government's prudent management of the public finances has allowed for a record allocation of well over €11 billion this year to provide real increases in social welfare payments, which means real money in people's pockets. The slow-down in international economic activity in recent years has affected us and we have had to make difficult choices in terms of our priorities. This is as it should be. However, it did not undermine the Government's commitment to strengthen and develop social protection.

The record level of spending announced at the time of the 2004 Estimates and the subsequent package of €630 million announced in the budget underscores this Government's commitment to helping the less well off in society while at the same time keeping the public finances in a healthy condition and keeping down taxes in order to strengthen and maintain the competitive position of the economy. The increase in social welfare spending could only be delivered if Government decisions on spending guidelines were respected. This required some difficult choices and was reflected in some of the measures announced at the time of the Estimates last November.

One measure provided for the discontinuance of the entitlement to an additional half rate payment of some benefits where the recipient is already in receipt of a widow's or widower's pension or lone parent family payments. This measure follows a general principle, common to social security systems across the world, that a person is only entitled to one income maintenance payment at any one time.

Their spouses already paid for it.

It was introduced with effect from 19 January 2004 and applies to new claimants only.

In identifying the measures that we eventually adopted at the time of the Estimates, we were concerned to avoid hardship among those in receipt of payments. Only a small fraction of persons will be affected by this measure. Those persons will already be in receipt of payment from my Department. The truth is that the Government has been particularly concerned to improve the level of payments provided to widows and widowers, who have benefited from the largest increases in social payments since 1987.

This Government has recognised the particular difficulties facing people following the loss of a spouse and improvements provided in recent years include the substantial increase since 1997 of more than 85% in the widow's and widower's contributory pension for those aged 66 years, increasing the rate to €167.30. This represents the largest increase granted to any group of social welfare recipients over the period. In addition, the rate of this payment has been progressively increased to the level of the old age contributory pension and the retirement pension, a process which was completed by me this year.

There has been an increase of more than 55% in the widow's and widower's contributory pension for those under 66 years, increasing the rate to €140.30. An increase of 80% for those in receipt of widow's and widower's non-contributory pension and aged 66 years and over, brings the weekly rate to €154. The increase in 2004 was €10 per week or an increase of 6.9%. For those in receipt of widow's and widower's non-contributory pension and aged under 66 years, the weekly rate has increased by €49.09 to €134.80. This represents an increase of more than 57%. The increase in 2004 was €I0 per week or 8%. For those in receipt of one-parent family allowance, the weekly rate has increased by €49.09 to €134.80. This represents an increase of more than 57%. The increase in 2004 was €10 per week or an increase of 8%.

A new widowed parent grant of €1,270 was introduced in December 1999 for newly widowed persons with children. The grant has been more than doubled since then and was last increased in budget 2004 by €200, to €2,700. The bereavement grant was introduced in 1999 to replace the old death grant. The rate increased substantially from €127 to €635 at present. Entitlement to a non-contributory pension was extended to widowers in 1997. After death payment arrangements were enhanced in 2003 and 2004 to ensure that household social welfare income was maintained in all circumstances for the six week period after the death of a spouse. Revised capital assessment arrangements were introduced in 2000, benefiting all non-contributory widows and widowers and lone parents.

Improvements for widows and widowers in the budget included a special additional increase for widows and widowers on contributory pension aged 66 years and over, bringing them up to the maximum rate of old age contributory pension. That is an overall increase of €11.50 per week or more than any other recipient received in the budget. There was a €10 per week increase for all other widows, contributory and non-contributory, with increases ranging from 7.7% to 8% or more than three times the projected rate of inflation in 2004, which is 2.5%.

Other special allowances provided in respect of widows and widowers include access to the back to work allowance and back to education allowance supports. These were extended to non-contributory widows and widowers in 2002 to facilitate and encourage their return to employment or education. Significant additional funding has been supplied for groups providing bereavement counselling. All widows and widowers aged 70 years and over now have automatic entitlement to the household benefits package, that is, free travel, electricity and phone allowance, regardless of household composition. Those in receipt of a contributory or non-contributory widow's or widower's pension will also receive the household benefits package at the age of 66 years and many widows in the 65 to 66 years age bracket whose spouses had been in receipt of the free schemes will continue to receive them after the demise of the spouse. While these changes have made meaningful improvements to the lives of many of the Department's customers, the Government is further committed in its programme to implement improvements in the widow's and widower's pensions and, in particular, to increasing all payments to contributory pensioners aged 66 years and over, including those payable to widows and widowers, to €200 by 2007.

Expenditure on the various social welfare payments is reviewed on an ongoing basis by my Department to ensure these schemes continue to meet their objectives. During the course of last year, areas of potential savings were identified and a number of measures were implemented to ensure that social welfare spending is better targeted. For the most part, these measures do not affect existing claimants but apply to new claimants from various dates in 2004.

I would like to explain more fully for Deputies the measure which is the subject of this motion. The social welfare system is primarily a contingency-based system. This means that entitlement to social welfare is based on a person satisfying one of a number of predefined contingencies, such as sickness, unemployment, old age, widowhood, etc. However, it can happen that a person may experience more than one of these contingencies at the same time. For instance, an unemployed person may become sick or an old age pensioner may become widowed. Accordingly, a general principle usually applies whereby even if a person experiences more than one of these contingencies at any one time, they only receive one of those payments. This principle is common to social security systems across the world.

Under the Irish social welfare system there have been a limited number of exceptions to this general principle. In the past these have included the situation whereby a recipient of widow's or widower's pension or one-parent family payment could, at the same time, receive short-term social insurance benefits such as disability benefit or unemployment benefit at half rate if the contingency arose.

Social welfare payments are paid mainly in the case of an inability to generate an income, either through lack of work due to unemployment, illness, etc., or through role perception, such as old age, retirement or widowhood. A key argument against concurrent payments is the fact that people should not be compensated more than once for the same inability to work. This argument is as valid in the case of widows, widowers and lone parents who are unemployed or ill as it is in the case of old age and retired pensioners who may also be widowed.

Accordingly, in the context of the preparation of the spending Estimates for 2004, this entitlement to concurrent half-rate payment of a number of benefits was discontinued for new claimants with effect from 19 January 2004. Existing recipients were not affected by this measure for the duration of their claim. The implementation of this measure has resulted in the more consistent treatment of recipients of widow's and widower's pensions as compared with other recipients of social welfare payments.

However, in considering the impact of this measure, it should be noted that many employees are currently covered by company sick or maternity pay schemes. Under these arrangements, such employees are entitled to full pay or a proportion of full pay while absent from work on sick or maternity leave. Most company sick and maternity pay schemes co-ordinate with social welfare provision. This means that many widows, widowers and parents affected by the measure will not be at an overall financial loss. This arises as the loss of the half-rate disability or maternity benefit payments will be offset by an increase in the level of occupational sick or maternity pay.

There has been some suggestion that the measure is particularly harsh on widows and widowers who are parents of young children. This is particularly difficult to accept as over the past number of years, the Government has made it clear that it was delivering income support for children not through primary payments which can then act as an employment trap but through child benefit which is paid to all families irrespective of their social welfare, employment or income status.

The Government broke that promise.

Since 1997 the rates of child benefit for the first two children have been increased by almost €94 a month, or 245%, while the rates for the third and subsequent children have been increased by almost €116 a month, or 233%. I would also point out that working widows on low income may be eligible for family income supplement and this can have a significant impact on the level of income support which is provided depending on the circumstances in the case.

While the Government provides considerable support to widows and widowers through its income support schemes, it is also worth noting their position with respect to the taxation and PRSI systems. The tax code provides: a total exemption from inheritance tax for benefits taken by the surviving spouse; a complete relief from the 2% probate tax for the part of the deceased's estate that is transferred to the surviving spouse; special income tax rules that apply for the year of death, and if there are dependent children, special income tax credits available for the years after bereavement; recipients of widow's and widower's pension are not liable to pay any social insurance contributions on their pension income; those in receipt of widow's and widower's pensions, in common with other employees who are working, are only liable to pay employee's social insurance contributions if their income from employment exceeds €287 per week or the equivalent of around €15,000 per year; and unlike the position of other workers, widow's or widower's pensioners who are working are not liable for the 2% health contribution.

I have already mentioned that the former arrangements for concurrently paying disability and unemployment benefits at half rate to recipients of widow's and widower's pensions, etc., was unique from an international perspective. However, the removal of these arrangements does not mean the removal of the preferential treatment of widows and widowers within the social welfare system. Contributory widow's and widower's pensions are still provided on a much more favourable basis in this country than in most other EU countries. In general, contributory widow's and widower's pensions are only paid in the other EU member states where there are dependent children still living with the surviving spouse, where the surviving spouse is over a defined age, ranging from 40 to 50 years, or where the surviving spouse is not working. None of these restrictions apply to the contributory widow's or widower's pension scheme operated in this country. Support for the less well-off, the disadvantaged, children and specifically for widows and widowers has been and will continue to be the hallmark of this Government.

I have come directly from a meeting with the National Widows Association during which we discussed the context of this measure against consistent and major spending in providing for widows and widowers and the reasons this measure was put in place. Following the meeting and having listened to what the association had to say, I undertook to evaluate its concerns, particularly about the impact this change will have on widows and widowers under the age of 66, and to get in touch with the association in due course. The association has advised me that it will keep me informed on an ongoing basis. I would like to ensure that interaction is completed over the next number of weeks or months. I assure the association of the Government's commitment in its agreed programme to implement improvement in the widow's and widower's pensions.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Kelleher.

The amount of money made available to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs for pensions was €630 million. That is two and a half times the level set by Fine Gael and the Labour Party when they were last in Government. Decisions had to be made as to how this money could be best spent.

That is history.

The Deputy should listen to it. He might learn from it.

We are not interested in listening to spin doctors.

Certain commitments were made by this Government to be met when it was returned to office. The Minister must allocate the funding to meet these commitments. If it did not those in Opposition would be screaming about the Government's failure to keep its promises.

They are broken promises.

The Government made a commitment to increase the pension to €200 within its lifetime. This year the Minister increased the pension by €10. We will not apologise for this.

What about widows and widowers?

That was before the election.

The Government acknowledges in full measure the contribution of older people to society and is fully committed to improving all aspects of their lives. All our budgets have been characterised by measures designed to improve the position of older people in our society in terms of pensions.

In the 1997 general election, we promised to increase all old age pensions to at least €127, or £100, per week over the Government's term. We delivered on that commitment. In the 2002 general election, we promised to increase the State pension to €200 per week. Over our term we will deliver on that commitment. The budget for 2004 puts us well on track to deliver. It provides for a €10 per week increase in the full personal rate of old age and related pensions.

People with selective political memories should not be allowed to forget that, over three budgets of the rainbow Government, the Labour Party Minister for Finance gave pensioners an average increase of a derisory €2.95. In contrast, the average increase to pensioners in the budgets of the current Minister, Deputy McCreevy, now stands at a massive €9.75.

What about cost of living increases?

And car insurance.

Deputy Carty should not allow himself to be deflected by interruptions.

The inflation rate was never as low. Let us talk about social welfare benefits in general.

The Deputy should talk about the widows and widowers.

In percentage terms, the old age contributory pension increased by less than 10% under the rainbow Government. Under Fianna Fáil, it has increased by well over two thirds. The figures speak for themselves.

That is history. The Deputy should tell us about now——

That is why the Deputies opposite are history.

——or he will be history.

There was much criticism from people and non-governmental organisations that baseline payments were low. It was decided, therefore, that there would be an increase in everyone's payment of €10 and also in the respective qualified adult allowances.

The Members opposite are determined to create the idea that the Government does not care about those who have lost a loved one.

It does not.

That is simply not true.

The people outside this House know.

When we returned to Government in 1997, widows and widowers' contributory pension was €90.30 per week. It is now €140.30, representing a 55% increase.

Four and a half years ago——

Does that mean the Deputy is happy with the widows and widowers' payment?

It is important to note in this debate that, since we returned to office, there has been an 80% increase in the non-contributory pension for those aged 66 and over and a 57% increase the in non-contributory pension for those under 66.

A widowed parent grant of €1,270 was introduced in December 1999 for widows and widowers with children. The grant was last increased in the budget for 2004 by €200 to €2,700. A bereavement grant was introduced in 1999 to replace the old death grant. The rate has been increased substantially from €127 to €635 at present.

It is unfortunate that the Department of Social and Family Affairs does not have the money to do everything.

What about the €100,000 a year for the spinner?

Who wrote that speech?

It must therefore prioritise certain issues.

(Interruptions).

In common with social security systems throughout the world, our system is primarily a contingency based one. One's entitlements are based on pre-defined contingencies such as sickness or unemployment. People can have more than one contingency at the same time. For example, a person could be unemployed and become sick. The general principle that usually applies is that, where a person experiences more than one of the contingencies at any one time, he or she only receives one payment.

The Deputy does not say that in his constituency.

I will say it anywhere I like.

He does not say it.

I will say it anywhere I like, and it is on the record of this House.

Is the Deputy happy with the way the widows and widowers' payments are being cut?

I know as much about widows and widowers as Deputy Ring.

Does Deputy Carty support the cuts?

Many members of my family have been so affected. The Minister had to consider a large number of savings up to €55 million. I agree that the removal of any social welfare entitlement is not palatable. However, this had to be done. Certain decisions had to be made to accumulate a saving of——

If the Deputy will listen I will tell him.

There was no need for it to be done.

Since returning to office in 1997, Fianna Fáil has introduced the most generous social welfare increases in the history of the State. We have increased old age contributory pensions by more than 68%, more than trebled child benefit rates and raised the lowest rates of social welfare by 50%.

An increase of 4.5 cent per day in child benefit. The Deputy should be ashamed to mention it.

The average rise in the lowest social welfare rates under the rainbow Government was €2.74 compared with €6.96 under this Government.

Unfortunately, we cannot give everything to everyone. It is the Minister's job to make tough decisions when necessary, and that is what he did in this year's budget.

I thank the Minister for outlining the position with regard to this particular measure. I wish to underline at the outset that we do not need to take lectures from people who were on this side of the House in previous incarnations and who did very little for those on social welfare. A lecture from the Opposition is akin to a lecture on human rights by Saddam Hussein.

The late Frank Cluskey gave an increase of 25%.

The Deputy's party has been on that side of the House for the past 20 years giving us a history lesson at every opportunity. Its members should be ashamed of themselves.

Allow Deputy Kelleher to speak without interruption.

Let us visit the recent history of the Opposition. These motions give us an opportunity to examine the Opposition's credibility when it was in Government. As Deputy Carty and the Minister already outlined, there have been dramatic increases in all social welfare payments in recent years.

What about food and ESB increases? Do they not happen?

Let us not be under any illusions. This is an emotive issue. The Minister has outlined the reasons the change has taken place, but we must look at the overall record of the Government with major increases across the board in all pension payments.

Prior to the general election there was significant opposition——

We hear Fine Gael proposals week in, week out when it espouses financial prudence, fiscal rectitude and savings that should be made in different areas. Where would it make savings in social welfare? It has been talking about prudent public expenditure in recent years.

We heard that rubbish before.

(Interruptions).

With all due respect, we are here to have a fair, open debate. We should at least have decent contributions from the Opposition as opposed to shouting people down when the facts speak for themselves.

Major increases in child benefit over recent years have been another hallmark of the Government. That is something that has been accepted by everybody. Payments to children are the most effective way of addressing child poverty.

What about the widows and widowers?

Over the years, the Combat Poverty Agency and all the other agencies have highlighted that and encouraged major increases in child benefit. Since 1997, the Government has delivered on its commitment to child benefit, which is a direct way of addressing child poverty.

Deputy Ring said that 47,000 fewer medical cards are being issued but, because of the Government's ability to ensure we have a strong economy, many more people are at work.

That is rubbish.

That is something the Deputies opposite continually forget. They massage the figures to ensure they can highlight——

A total of €206 for a couple and 47,000 cut off the medical card list.

Deputy Ring knows that the figures speak for themselves.

The Government promised 300,000 more.

I have come into this House many times to listen to Deputy Ring, whose contributions are often colourful, but I wonder if he ever wants to listen to the facts as espoused by the Minister.

I hate listening to rubbish.

We have delivered the lowest employment rate in Europe at 4.4%——

We heard the same words from Deputy Carty and the Minister.

It is the same speech.

——and the lowest inflation rate. All the Opposition's arguments about high inflation over recent years stand for nothing because this Government has made major contributions to ensuring we have a strong economy, low inflation, increased social welfare payments, increased child benefit and tackling the real issues of child poverty. All the experts suggest that we have made major advances in addressing poverty in this society.

I commend the Minister on attending and explaining the reasons for this change. I also commend her on the major increases provided in social welfare over past Estimates and the budget. If the Members opposite want to talk about recent history, as Deputy Carty outlined, €3 was the average increase for old age pensioners when they were in Government.

It was better than an increase of 2.5 cent per day.

That is what a Labour Finance Minister, a Democratic Left Minister for Social Welfare and a Fine Gael Taoiseach did when they were in Government.

The Deputy's party was 20 years in government.

He was the very man the Minister for Finance tried to destroy with the "dirty dozen".

One does not need a consultant to do one's job.

We will continue to highlight and address the major issues raised in this debate. I commend the Minister for meeting the National Widows Association and assuring them that she will consider and address their problems on an ongoing basis.

The only comfort the Opposition can give is to come in here and shout down the Government and the Minister when she is trying to explain her policies. Deputy Ring will not get away with that. He too will be found out.

I will tell the widowers in Cork what Deputy Kelleher is doing. Is he happy with the cutbacks for widowers?

The people have spoken and will speak again when they will judge us in the round and on the major increases. I thank the Minister for coming into the House.

They are waiting for the Government.

They are looking forward to it.

Deputy Ring was found wanting in the High Court.

I will go down to Cork and tell the widowers about the cutbacks.

Why would Deputy Ring go all the way down there?

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and congratulate the Labour Party on its initiative. That two other Opposition parties have joined it indicates how strongly the Opposition in general feels about this issue, as do many Government backbenchers, regardless of what happens here. There is real concern about the cut in allowances for widows and widowers who were living a full life until God took away their spouses. Suddenly their lives changed: they had to deal with bereavement, different economic circumstances and often had to raise families alone. These people were forced, or in some cases rightly chose, to go to work as well as manage their domestic life and rear their children. They did so to survive and ensure their families had a good quality of life, although it might not reach the level it would have done were their spouses alive. They did the best they could in difficult circumstances.

When further adverse circumstances intervened, whether loss of a job, temporary lay-off, or an illness, they had a cushion because in addition to their widow's or widower's pension, they received unemployment or disability benefit. They were not forced to go back to work because they had the safety net of their pensions albeit that was less than they earned in the workplace. Now that has been taken from them. The Minister should reflect on the reality of these people's situation. We can shout at one another across the House on the political implications of the issue but we need to consider the human implications for people trying to rear and educate their children and maintain a standard of living when their work has been removed for whatever reason. Anyone who has lost employment and had to live on basic social welfare for any amount of time knows its impact. A widow's or widower's pension is basic social welfare.

One of my constituents lost her husband when her family was young. She returned to work as a caretaker and cleaner at the local school where she earns a reasonable sum to help her family. Each year at Easter and summer she is laid off for the holidays. Hitherto she had the cushion of social welfare through her PRSI contributions, as was her right. This was not a gift from the State. Insurable employment means being insured against difficulties that may arise whether losing one's job or being unable to work through illness or disability. That woman wants to know how she will survive, especially during the summer months when she will not have the safety net that was available in other years.

She asked me if she could get supplementary welfare allowance but she is not eligible for it. She wants to find a way to meet the commitments she has made on the basis of having her pension, her job, and in times of crisis, the safety net of unemployment benefit. She cannot understand why as a public representative I cannot do something about that but that is because the rules have been changed. Sixteen rules have been changed without consultation with widows and widowers who are experiencing difficulties as a result. I urge the Minister to look at the human situation, re-examine it and without any loss of face, reverse the decision.

I wish to share time with Deputies Durkan and Lynch. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. Some of the Government backbenchers have spoken quite loudly of their anxiety about this issue in private and within their constituencies. I take issue with the comment that people lost medical cards because of the increased income in our society on the principle that a rising tide lifts all boats. I can cite an example of how people lost their medical cards. This is a farming case, which some people do not understand, concerning a farmer who milks 18 cows on 40 acres. The community welfare officer estimates her income at €630 per week yielding an average profit of €1, 800 per cow. Does anybody believe that? The best herds are being sold because there is no profit in dairy farming. Anyone who reads the Irish Farmers’ Journal or any other newspaper can see that. Every creamery manager is worried about the number of herds being sold yet a community welfare officer can say that a small to medium-size farm is making €1,800 per cow.

The Government's ethos is to deprive those who are least well off of benefits. The worst aspect of that case is that the woman involved is seriously ill and on medical evidence alone should have a medical card. However, the Government is using these extraordinary figures to deny her one. The Minister knows very well how I feel on the issue of widows and widowers, especially young widows trying to raise a family and who receive harsh treatment. This cut is the last straw. One young widow asked me recently what we would do about this, almost blaming the Opposition for what the Government has done. Her eldest child is going to college. She is in a FÁS job which will finish in May and was looking forward to receiving some social welfare payment based on her stamps. However, she has been hit by this cutback. Her only fault is that her husband died and she has to go out to work.

It is a crying shame that these cuts are made at a time when millions of euro are available for areas such as Punchestown. This House met to discuss a Bill to deal with dormant accounts and a new impartial group was established to deal with the expected €25 million to €30 million raised. However, when the Government found the money raised would be approximately €150 million, it decided to scrap the group and use the extra money as a slush fund. This Minister should ensure that she demands her €5.8 million from that slush fund. Another slush fund is expected from dormant insurance policies, and I am sure it will be dealt with in the same manner. Plenty of money is available.

When we look for more money, the Minister always asks us to explain where it can be found. As an Opposition spokesman on community and rural affairs, I am explaining it to her clearly. I know in her heart the Minister wants to make some of these improvements. I was glad to hear she had met the people involved and that she will examine the issue. Will she examine it now before it is too late?

I am amazed by the backdrop for this debate, namely, what is alleged to be the most worthwhile and well-managed economy in the world. We were told a few months ago at budget time about how this economy was being managed in the best interests of the people. We were told they were never happier and had given a mandate to those in Government to do what they had to do.

I cannot believe that, against this backdrop, the Government has embarked on the weaselly, swingeing cuts it has announced or that it has singled out the most vulnerable group of people in society to pay for them. The Government is saying that, although this is a great and flourishing economy in which many people are doing well, this group must pay. What has the Minister to say to the widows of Ireland and their children? What excuse can she make to them having told them they must pay? What have they done to her? Have they offended her or is there a specific reason this vulnerable group should be singled out for repeated punishment?

Several Members on the Government side of the House referred to the budget. Let us look at how the budget affected widows, widowers and single parents who live in private rented accommodation. They received an increase in the budget but, the following day, community welfare officers reduced their rent supplement or support, thus leaving them without any increase.

That is not true.

They received nothing and the Minister should know that this is what has happened. She should consult community welfare officers to find out what is happening. This is happening and I do not understand how the Minister is not aware of it.

That is not a fact.

As God is my witness, I assure the Minister that this is exactly what is happening. If welfare officers are acting ultra vires, it is time she called them in.

We can ask further questions. One of my constituents has been a widow for almost 35 years. She was a young woman when she was widowed. She reared her family on a small pension and worked as a cleaner and did everything she could to get some employment. She got on her knees and scrubbed floors. After that she looked forward to the day when she could have some pride and dignity and get some return for the contributions she had made. However, the Government has decided she has had it too easy and will make life difficult for her. It will punish her so that society can continue to flourish until the next general election. The Government wants to save money between now and the next general election to buy the people at the time of the election. The Government is walking away from its responsibilities and laughing in the face of the people. It is dividing society.

As some Opposition Deputies have already pointed out, society is being divided, slowly but surely. In the same way Margaret Thatcher divided society in the United Kingdom, middle income groups here are being pushed to the side of the poor and we are left with just the rich and the poor. If this continues, the Minister will soon have no opportunity to apologise to the people. They will call a halt, inform her that her time is up and that she is the weakest link.

A strong performance with no substance, as usual.

Having been involved in the budget debate with Deputies Ryan, Penrose and Ring and other Opposition speakers, this is, I suppose, my second bite of the cherry. During that debate, the Minister did not realise there would be such a huge reaction to this cut. At the time, it was clear that the reason it was made was that it would affect approximately 2,000 people who now become, to all intents and purposes, lone parents. The loss was unexpected to people working and trying to rear their families on their own. This was not their plan. Their plan was made in conjunction with their partners and was based on two incomes. They had children and decided what education their children would receive based on two incomes. Their loss was not planned and could not have been foreseen. If they could turn back the clock, they would.

In recent weeks I have often heard something to which the Minister took offence when I said it to her. However, I will say it to her again. I have promoted women all my life; there are few enough of us in public life. I continue to say that, unless we have women in positions of power, we will never have answers to an agenda which will benefit the entire community. The names Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir have been thrown at us as examples of women in power. Now we will be told that we wanted equality and that we have a female Minister for Social and Family Affairs who has introduced the most scathing social welfare budget of all time.

Deputy Ring said that the Minister made Scrooge look like a spendthrift. She makes Margaret Thatcher look like a socialist, and that is some task. Before and during the debate on social welfare, we for the free schemes to be extended to widows under 66 years of age. It is difficult to rear a family on the pittance they receive — €145 — which is nothing to boast about, plus the €19 for a child dependant. Nobody could live on that. I offered to try with the Minister to live on it for a week to see how far we would get.

Instead of extending the free schemes, the Minister cut back. We repeatedly hear her say that it is only to keep us in line with the rest of Europe. What are the rates in Norway, Sweden and the rest of Europe for people in this position? I guarantee the Minister that they are double what they are here.

Last weekend I sat next to a woman from my and Deputy Kelleher's constituency. She asked me if it was true what the Government was doing to widows? I told her it was. She told me she was widowed since her early 30s and that she worked full-time. She said she had three children and was grateful they were nearly all through school and would not be dependent much longer. She had remortgaged her house to fund her children's education.

She told me she had a serious illness a number of years ago and is praying that it will not return. If it does, she will be left to live on the paltry sum which the Government thinks is the best in Europe. There will not be any additional money for her. In case the Minister does not understand the social welfare system, the widow's and widower's pension is based on the contribution of the person that has died.

Those who are looking for the return of what the Minister has taken away, want the pension to be paid on the basis of their own contributions. They are not looking for something for nothing. What the Minister is doing may be illegal. She cannot tell people they will not receive a benefit from this. In spite of that, the Government still insists it will continue to pay it. The Minister should have the courage to reverse this cut. I do not believe it was done by civil servants, it was done by the Minister who is sufficiently experienced. It will take courage for the Minister to reverse this cut. She should not let it be said that a woman did this.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn