Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005

Vol. 597 No. 6

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I wish to share time with Deputy Finian McGrath and Deputy Boyle.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

As this Bill provides for a number of measures announced in the budget, it is reasonable to refer to the budget. The budget was generally well received and, for that reason, I supported the Finance Bill. However, lest the Government believes it can claim the glory, I firmly believe the credit for the generally acceptable budget goes to the electorate, which voted in the European and local elections in a determined manner to express its displeasure with the performance of the Government. That action shows how well informed the electorate is and that it is disposed towards using the mighty weapon available to it, the ballot box. Long may that continue.

I welcome the provisions in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2005 and I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Brennan, on the impact he has made in this Department in a short time. Indeed, I was sorry to see the Minister leave the Department of Transport, where he was making progress. He was willing to make decisions. At all times, he implemented Government policy so it was a surprise when he was moved. I am wandering a little from the subject under discussion but that decision conveyed a clear signal, regretfully in my view, about who was in charge in this country and who makes the decisions. I wish the Minister well in the Department of Social and Family Affairs; I am sure he will make his mark there.

I wish to refer to the 16 social welfare cuts introduced in the Social Welfare Act 2004 and to acknowledge the current Minister's attempt in this Bill to ease those cuts. His actions in this regard show his commitment to the less well-off. The financial provision being made for people with disabilities is welcome. For years, people with disabilities were badly treated by successive Governments. They were a weak lobby and could be easily ignored, so they were ignored. That is a shame for our society and successive Governments.

People with disabilities and parents and guardians of persons with disabilities have felt isolated, neglected and betrayed by Government and society for many years. Their sense of betrayal has led to a mistrust of Government and to them treating Government promises with suspicion. A firm commitment of financial provision is now being made and I welcome it. I look forward to the roll-out of that allocation so the people who have been neglected for so long can benefit.

I am disappointed with the provision for carers. Carers have done this country a great service and the Government should formally recognise their extensive contribution. An inclusive national strategy should be developed to put a support structure in place. A minimal investment in this area will result in actual savings in the health budget. I referred earlier to the feelings of isolation and betrayal on the part of people with disabilities. Carers also experience those feelings.

I welcome the Minister's recent announcement about the lone parent benefit and his resolve to make that allowance a more family friendly payment. This change of direction in bestowing a positive aspect to the lone parent allowance is most welcome and will bring about many benefits, not least by saving the Exchequer the cost of paying the Department's inspectors who were employed to ensure that lone parents were living without partners. The new approach will also have a positive effect resulting in more single parents being encouraged back into the workforce. The benefits are twofold. First, lone parents' quality of life will greatly improve and, therefore, their sense of self-worth will be enhanced. Second, there will also be a benefit to the economy. This news comes at a time when lone parents need a boost following the deeply insulting, ignorant and rude comments in The Irish Times, which described single mothers as mothers of bastards.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity of commenting on the Bill. It is important for everyone to wake up to the reality that pockets of poverty throughout the State need to be tackled. I welcome this debate on issues such as child, disability and carer's benefits.

The article by Kevin Myers and the Ed Walsh school of right-wing ideology have prompted a positive reaction from society at large. It shows that the country has not lost its compassionate side or its caring image. The reaction to Mr. Myers's disgraceful article amounted to a people's revolution. The reaction of people displayed an understanding and caring for lone parents that was not long in shutting up Mr. Myers and his ilk. It showed that Ireland was not going backwards. The people's quiet revolution on this issue gave me great hope for the future. We must be on our guard, however, against right-wing ideology emanating from the University of Limerick and other such places. Such ideology exists but it is up to everyone involved in public life to ensure that a bunch of neo-conservatives never gets control of this country. Sadly, we have seen what has happened in the United States so we must be vigilant.

The Bill provides for a number of measures announced in the budget, including increases in child benefit, an increase in the amount of capital disregarded for the purposes of certain means-tested schemes, an improvement in carer's benefit and the respite care grant scheme, and an enhancement of the disability payment scheme, including the introduction of a weekly payment for persons who do not qualify for disability allowance solely because they are resident in an institution.

The Bill also provides for a number of amendments to the Pensions Act 1990. Section 3 provides for an increase in the monthly rate of child benefit as announced in the budget. The lower rate of benefit payable in respect of each of the first two children is increased by €10 per month, from €131.60 to €141.60. The rate for the third and each subsequent child is being increased by €12 per month, bringing the rate from €165.30 to €177.30. These increases will come into effect from 1 April 2005. They constitute an important part of the legislation as they focus on the issue of child poverty.

I welcome the Minister's recent comment that he will examine seriously the possibility of targeting resources for the most needy in society. Within poor, low-income families there are approximately 65,000 children living in serious poverty. People often wonder who these children are given the considerable wealth in the State. I know many of them myself having spent 20 years working in a school in a disadvantaged area on Dublin's north side. Such children come from very poor and often dysfunctional families. Many of them attend junior infant classes without having eaten breakfast. Happily, many creative schools, with the support of the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Social and Family Affairs, have initiated breakfast club projects. Sadly, such children must attend breakfast clubs to make a proper start to the day. It should be remembered that children cannot learn in an educational environment if they are starting off hungry at nine in the morning. I commend all those who are involved in such worthwhile projects. They provide a valuable service not only for children but also for the State.

Many of these children come from disruptive, problem families and are often ignored. Many of them are great children against the odds. I have been amazed by the number of children I have come across over 20 years who come from poor, dysfunctional families, yet they are able to accomplish a day's work at school. It is unbelievable what they can do. It is our role as legislators to ensure such children receive the maximum support. I challenge those in society, including people in political parties who do not accept that reality. Such children exist and they need our help. It is important to recall these facts in dealing with section 3.

As regards disability benefits, we must accept that there are thousands of people with disabilities in our society. The budget was a major step in the right direction in providing funding to reduce waiting lists for day care and respite places. I sound a note of caution, however, because many families have been waiting for such places for a long time. Consequently they have become cynical while waiting for such services to come on stream.

While the Bill contains positive aspects, I encourage the Minister to target resources at those who are most in need of them.

The Bill's timing and much of its contents are almost automatic in that they form part of the annual legislative programme. However, its timing is useful when combined with the ongoing controversy about The Irish Times’ recent opinion piece, a term that is fast becoming an oxymoron because who would want an opinion like that.

This week, the One Family Group highlighted the role of such families and the type of support the State should offer them. In addition, a recent presentation by the End Child Poverty Coalition to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs put poverty and those affected by it into context, as well as focusing on the role of the State, if any, in counteracting poverty.

The Minister's speech contained a phrase which may have been unintentional but seemed to signify something that encapsulates the Government's philosophy. He said the Department's role, and indeed his own, is to stop the descent towards poverty. That phrase, however, indicates a lack of belief that poverty exists on an ongoing basis in any case. It also amounts to holding up one's hands and stating that many in society are in a downward spiral. I do not believe that is the Minister's belief but the phraseology indicates a type of thinking within the Department and the Government that must be challenged.

Poverty — it is a relative poverty — is a reality in Ireland. Recent EU reports have stated that 23% of children are either living in poverty or at risk of doing so. There are similar statistics relating to women. It seems that the young, the elderly and women in particular are more at risk of becoming poor in our society. While that is the challenge facing the Government, I am afraid it is also the effect of ongoing Government policies. Those policies may not all be attributable to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs but we need to recognise that whatever the Minister and his Department try to do, other policies are being effected by other Ministers and Departments that are pulling the Government in the opposite direction. The proof is that the disparity between wealth and poverty in Ireland is greater than in other European countries. As the economy grows, those statistics appear, sadly, to be worsening rather than improving. Until someone explains to me how that circle can be squared by the Government, I will continue to presume that the policies being followed will make the situation worse.

Child benefit is the first issue dealt with in the legislation. The Government continues to trumpet about the fourfold increase in child benefit but it is still less than the commitment entered into by the Government in social partnership agreements. This gives a lie to the assertion that children are being treated better than others in society.

I refer to the debate on the Kevin Myers article and his colourful use of language and, more importantly, the original lecture by Dr. Ed Walsh, which was much more insulting, as it was portrayed as a pseudo-intellectualism that belied a sense of the reality of being a lone parent with one child living on €168.10 a week. When Dr. Walsh is hosting dinners and fundraising for the University of Limerick, those who make donations pay that for the wine bill alone, yet people must live on this amount every week of the year. We must not tolerate this lack of reality, which does not relate to how people must conduct their lives. Child benefit, prior to the decision relating to Irish-born children of asylum seekers, was a universal payment but it does not tackle the issue of poverty among one-parent families.

The Bill seeks to assert the Government is meeting the needs of carers. There has been a wide ranging and successful lobby in this area but the limited measures proposed by the Minister will only bring 1,000 additional carers into the net while 2,500 will benefit from the increase in respite care. The Government should be honest enough to admit these increases go nowhere near covering the number of carers recognised by the Carers Association. The Government needs to be more radical in its proposals.

The disability allowance for people living in institutions is presented as an advance. Although these people were entitled to the payment in the past, they did not receive it. I am concerned about inequity between people who receive the full rate and those living in institutions who will receive a new reduced rate. Given the Supreme Court decision on the Health (Amendment) Bill 2004 earlier, this issue of discriminatory payments needs to be examined closely on Committee Stage. I wonder whether the provision of such payments might tempt the State to give with one hand and grab more with the other, as it did in regard to nursing home care.

The legislation also covers occupational pensions and the Minister stated he would pay more attention to this issue during his stewardship of the Department. While there is a need to encourage people to make extra provision for their retirement, I fear that insurance companies and investment trusts are leading the debate to create a sense of panic, as they assert that invested-led pension schemes are better than sinking fund pension schemes. The promotion of one over the other means there is a fear State provision will be reduced in the future. I do not want that to happen and that will ultimately be self-defeating.

Domestic pension fund managers performed worse than the market in the past year while the national pension fund is not meeting its targets. If inflation and the cost of administering the national fund are taken into account, it is questionable whether it has made money. That is why the emphasis on sinking pension funds and State provision should be increased. It is incredible that the value of concessions on private pension arrangements is greater than State pension provision. That is a sad state of affairs. If the Minister wishes to encourage such activity, he will not have my support or that of my party.

He also indicated there is potential to encourage foreign pension funds to establish in Ireland. While this would provide employment opportunities, questions need to be asked about where this money is invested. For example, is it invested in armaments or environmentally sustainable goods? If such industries are encouraged and we turn a blind eye to these activities, the wealth generated will scar us all and it will not ultimately benefit future generations.

I wish to share time with Deputy Haughey.

I welcome the legislation and I wish the Minister well in the Department. I am glad he declared his socialist credentials at an early stage and provided for the redirection of social welfare provision in the 2005 budget. Previous speakers stated the redirection followed the results of the 2004 elections but many Government backbenchers questioned the direction the Government was taking and requested a change. I am glad the policy outlined in the budget reflects our contribution. I encourage the Minister to do more in this regard.

The significant budget of €12 billion at his disposal will fulfil many wishes and deliver many increases in benefits but the demands of social partnership and the commitments entered into will lead to expenditure of further billions. These commitments should be front-loaded and they should be met later his year through further social welfare increases. I agree fully with the Minister's statement that one size welfare does not fit all and I encourage him, given that he has been a reforming Minister in other Departments, to act on that statement and review the various benefits provided, which have been in place for many years and are in urgent need of an overhaul. There is no time for complacency in this regard.

The lecture by Dr. Walsh and the article written by Kevin Myers provide a starting point in the lone parents debate. I welcome the Minister's recent views on the issue. I condemn both Dr. Walsh and Kevin Myers for their comments. The Myers article, in particular, was highly insulting and his apology fell well short of the mark. Lone parents should be given the opportunity to play an extended role in the workforce and to improve their education while bearing their responsibilities in mind.

Far too often in our clinics we must listen to people trying to tailor their lives to the criteria set down by the Department rather than the Department trying to tailor its benefits and payments towards the development of the human being. It is essential the Department does this because this has a bearing not only on the recipient, but on the child or children in the equation. I urge the Minister to take up this point from this debate and lead the way in the context of the supports needed in terms of payments received by lone parents or with regard to the break they need to get on with their lives and improve their lot.

The same can be said with regard to fathers. More often than not we direct our attention towards lone mothers rather than considering the rights of fathers also. This is an issue that has been addressed in comments from the Department, but I would like to see the Minister lead a deeper debate on the rights and benefits of lone fathers.

I am glad the Minister addressed the issue of last year's cutback in widow's payments. That was a despicable act. As backbenchers we had to go along with it, the unfortunate part of democracy and how it works in Dáil Éireann. I am delighted that cut has been reversed. Widows are a section in the social welfare benefit area and we must address the issues of what they receive, how they live etc.

I came across the case of a lady who started nursing in 1950 but who had to retire in 1960 because of the marriage ban, a ban later found unconstitutional in 1972. That woman now has to rely solely on her husband's pension because she is not entitled to one, even though she had to retire because of the ban. She had made her contributions, but they were given back. This woman is now almost a non-person. She is in limbo and not recognised by the Department. She feels discriminated against. This issue was addressed previously by a former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. The current Minister should take up the issue and explore how many people were affected and why. He must examine whether we can restore some status to these people in the context of the social welfare code.

The non-contributory widow's pension must also be addressed, particularly in the context of the amount of the pension and the responsibilities of the widow. Some widows are left with families to rear and with children at college. They must be both mother and father in the house and must deal with the difficulties of life on a low income. I urge the Minister to do something to improve the situation for both of these categories.

The Government of 1997-2002 made it clear that it would raise pensions to €200 per week. When that statement was made, €200 was a reasonable amount of money. Now those headline statements on benefits need to be revisited. We should set out for those on benefit our vision of what they should receive over the next few years. We should set goals for ourselves in the Department and within Government, and clearly and boldly state those goals. Notwithstanding any economic downturn that may happen here because of world economics, or any other excuse, we should stick to these goals and deliver to those receiving benefits a reasonable payment every week. Only by stating our goals will we tie ourselves economically to what needs to be done.

On the issue of old age pensions and long-term benefits of that kind, we should strike some deal with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the issue of differential rents. This issue has been bandied about in my time in local authorities over the past 25 years. No sooner do we give an increase in benefit, particularly to old age pensioners, than a differential rent form drops through their letter box to be filled. As a result of that, most of the increase is reclaimed for the State through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I urge the Minister, in conjunction with that Department, to set a bottom line rent for those people and to disregard increases above that received by pensioners. This is a small amount of money in today's terms or in the context of the spend of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, this simple measure would be a huge boost to the people directly affected.

With regard to the disability allowance which will be paid to people in institutions, I would like to see the Minister make some arrangement with the Department of Health and Children to ensure that those entitled to the allowance receive it. In some cases, as we found out in the Committee of Public Accounts, the money goes into their account but is later used by hospitals and institutions to purchase furniture or other improvements they may need for their stay in the institution. That is grossly unfair. This does not happen in isolated cases, but throughout the country and in all the old health board areas. The practice should be stopped and institutions should have to account for the money and show it is paid directly to recipients.

These are just a few of the measures I ask the Minister to consider. The changes would affect people's lives in a direct, positive and tangible way.

I congratulate the Minister on the work he is doing in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and on this Bill and the Social Welfare Bill enacted before Christmas. The Minister confounded his critics in the media on his appointment and has clearly demonstrated that he adheres to a caring social philosophy. He has demonstrated himself to be a reforming Minister in the Department. I look forward to many more innovations from his Department in the years ahead.

In budget 2005 the Minister reversed many of the measures introduced in budget 2004. I welcome the reversals relating to the rent allowance, diet and crèche supplements etc. As economic growth has increased again, the Minister has recognised that these cuts were unnecessary. I welcome the fact that he has looked at the measures in an imaginative way, introduced reform and, in some cases, reversed them.

I appeal to the Minister to simplify the social welfare system which is enormously complex. As a public representative, I admit I am still not familiar with all the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts. From time to time, I must research an issue for a constituent and the more I go into it, the more I realise how complex the system is. I advise the Minister to simplify and consolidate the system as he proceeds. No doubt he will consider this proposal favourably.

This Bill provides for increases in child benefit from 1 April, with a €10 per month increase for the first and second child, giving up to €141.60 per month for each child. It also makes provision for a €12 per month increase for the third child and subsequent children, giving up to €177.30 per month. I welcome these increases. Since 1997, the Government has identified child benefit as a way of dealing with the issues of child care and child poverty. The commitment is clearly there in this budget and in previous budgets. I welcome the Government's approach to child care and the selection of child benefit as the major plank in dealing with this major issue.

I also welcome the improvements in the annual respite care grant scheme that will come into effect from June. Carers, in particular, have sought to have the means test for the carer's allowance abolished. Deep down, everybody knows we do not have the resources to do that, at least in one fell swoop. Beefing up the respite care grant is another step in the right direction of making help available to people not in receipt of carer's benefit or carer's allowance. I am not familiar with the regulations regarding qualification for this extended grant scheme but I hope they will be simple and easily understood by all concerned. Many more people will be able to avail of this grant scheme, which is to be welcomed. It is a step in the right direction towards the ultimate ideal of doing away with the means test for the carer's allowance.

The Bill makes provision for an increase from €12,697.38 to €20,000 in the amount of capital disregard for the purposes of the means tested social welfare schemes, other than the supplementary welfare allowance. This provision will come into effect in April 2005 for the purpose of the carer's allowance, and in June 2005 for other relevant means tested schemes. The disregards relating to the carer's allowance should be looked at every year, which I know the Government has done. It too is a step in the direction of the abolition of the means test. It is an ideal that may never be reached but we must always strive towards it. I am glad the disregards have been looked at in this Bill.

I am a board member of the Northside Partnership set up to tackle long-term unemployment on the north side of Dublin. A number of similar projects, which operate under the aegis of ADM, exist throughout the country. Last year it produced a document entitled, Policy Issues Inhibiting the Client Base of the Northside Partnership. The report is based around a series of case studies that illustrate the policy and administrative blockages that inhibit people from making the often difficult transition from welfare dependency to gainful employment. I recommend the document to the Minister and his officials. It is a practical document that deals with actual case studies and outlines the stupidity of certain provisions that inhibit various groups from getting back to work.

The Northside Partnership deals in particular with the following categories of people; the long-term unemployed, women returning to work, lone parents, young people at risk of unemployment, people with low levels of education or skills, ex-drug misusers, ex-offenders, Travellers, people with disabilities, homeless people and refugees.

I will refer to one or two of the number of suggestions that were made in the document. It was suggested that disabled people should be guaranteed retention of their medical cards when they return to employment. It was also suggested that places on Youthreach programmes should be increased to meet demand and that age restrictions be changed to facilitate access to students aged 12 to 16 years who have left mainstream schools and are without a training allowance. Another suggestion was that non-EU school leavers who are residents would be provided with the same access to third level education as their EU counterparts. The classification of students as EC/non-EU should be uniform across the third level sector and adjusted over time according to their number of years' residence. It was also proposed that one year of unemployment should be the standard definition for labour market programmes but flexibility should be provided to give officials the ability to case conference. The document contains several other suggestions to which I hope the Minister's officials will give serious consideration.

I welcome the Minister's comments on single-parent families. Again, it was a breath of fresh air. He says he wishes to facilitate the entry of lone parents into the education system or the workplace and that the system, where possible, should facilitate two parents in child rearing. The Minister is a brave man to look into this issue but it needs to be addressed. We must aim for a system that guarantees equality across the board in the social welfare system for all claimants. If that involves going down the individualisation route then we need to start on that process. It is a complex issue. The Minister will touch on many vested interests as he proceeds. I welcome his comments and look forward to reforms in that area.

The group, One Family, which represents single parents, published a position paper yesterday, which clearly stated that official figures contradicted recent claims that it was financially rewarding to become a single parent. All of us on the ground know that.

It is a very good social welfare Bill and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.

Before Deputy Haughey leaves the Chamber I want to say that I know he does not believe the spin from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I know the Minister has a good spinner because he is from Mayo, and if there is one thing we are good at in Mayo it is spinning. The Minister has been good at one thing since coming to office and I compliment him and congratulate him on that; his spin doctors have never worked as well. However, when one looks at the reality, nothing is there.

I want to give Deputy Haughey some examples, as I heard him refer to one a moment ago. Because a review is taking place, there has been no change in the diet supplement. If there is one thing the Government has been good at, it is reports and reviews. It should set up a Government magazine called, ‘Review', because everything is reviewed. A great deal of money has been spent on spin doctors and programme managers. I do not blame the officials. I compliment the officials. I have worked with them for years and know they do an excellent job. The problem is they are not heeded and the spin is sent out by the spinners.

I agree with Deputy Haughey's point in regard to lone parents. As a public representative I am sick and tired of listening to people say at political meetings, clinics or whatever, how well people are doing on social welfare, especially lone parents. Deputy Haughey is right, that is incorrect.

We are all aware of the outrageous attack Mr. Myers and Dr. Walsh recently made on lone parents. Mr. Myers had to retract his original article. It created a debate in the country and that was no harm. Most lone parents are on €170 per week and one can add another couple of euro for each child. I challenge any politician in this House to live on €200 per week.

I have never had as many elderly people in my clinics since Christmas who have concerns about the free schemes. There is total confusion, not with the Department of Social and Family Affairs, but in regard to the ESB. The ESB has increased its charges and people who were able to get by on the allocation of free units can no longer do so. The ESB appears to be overcharging people or ripping them off in some way. I have never had as many complaints from people on this matter.

I also wish to raise a few other issues. The first relates to the three different payments of child dependant allowance, an issue I raise every year and will continue to raise. I have asked before that this issue be referred to the Equality Authority for it to make a judgment on the matter. There should not be three different kinds of payments. Children are supposed to be equal under the Constitution. Why then does the Department of Social and Family Affairs continue to pay different rates for different groups of children? Rather than carrying out a review in respect of this issue, the Government should do the right thing and bring all the payments up to the €21.60 rate rather than paying three different rates.

In light of today's Supreme Court judgment on patients' pension deductions, the Department of Social and Family Affairs needs to address the manner in which it deals with the affairs of elderly people. A person might live to 90, 91, 92 or 93 years of age and be cared for by his or her family; or alternatively he or she might live alone with a carer looking after him or her, doing a bit of shopping and paying the few little bills. When the person dies, if he or she is in receipt of a non-contributory pension, it can cause problems. For example, I am aware of a case in which a person in her 90s in her lifetime had saved €16,800. She had lived in a residential home for the last few years and when probate was carried out, the State claimed she should not have had any savings. I accept that a non-contributory pension is supposed to be means-tested but surely to God the State should not track back for 20 years to take account of the old rather than the present-day disregard and seek to recoup more than €10,000 from the family to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. A group that had a case before the courts previously and is preparing to take it before the courts again contacted me. If a 90 year old leaves €16,800, surely to God the State should not claim €10,000 from the family, particularly if the person was sick and could live within his or her pension. Will the Minister tell the House how a woman of 90 years of age and who might not have been means-tested for ten or 20 years would know to telephone the Department of Social and Family Affairs to inform the officials that she has €10,000, €12,000 or €15,000 in the bank? It is an issue that must be examined by the Department quickly.

If the person saved that much, it demonstrates how good the pension is.

That demonstrates how ignorant the Deputy is of the facts. Some of these people might be sick, have Alzheimer's disease, be in full-time care or have a neighbour looking after them and they are asking the State for very little other than a non-contributory pension. In such cases they might be able to save a few euros. Old people have always been good at planning for the rainy day and always put away a few pounds for it no matter how bad things were. One must remember that there were many bad days in this country and these are the very people who saw out those bad days. They helped to build up the State and it is wrong at this stage of their life for the Minister and his Department to target their families when they have just €16,000 left at the end of their days and seek to draw back €10,000. The matter will have to be examined.

I wrote to the Minister during the week about a case involving a person with a disability. Some of the Minister's staff are very good, some are excellent and others are not so good, which is the way it works in all parts of society. In every job there is the good, the bad and the ugly. In this respect, the Department of Social and Family Affairs is no different to any other. A man in receipt of disability benefit, who cannot read or write and is a member of the Travelling community contacted me. A social welfare officer had paid him a visit because he had seen him on the previous Sunday with his two sons selling a few flags at a football match and the official suspended his payment.

That kind of behaviour is not acceptable to me. It is not acceptable that a person who cannot read or write would be placed under that pressure and forced to go to the health board the following day to seek community welfare allowance. I am speaking from memory since the Minister has the details in the letter. However, I understand that the man's mother died when she was 30 years old and he reared 13 members of his family. The man's father and one of his brothers committed suicide, there having been a family history of depression. This man cried in my office a fortnight ago because of the manner in which he was treated.

I attended an appeal recently, the details of which I will not reveal in the House but of which I will inform the Minister privately. It is time some of his officials were taken to task. There are some excellent officials in some of the offices throughout the State, but some are not so excellent and it is time Members of this House stood up and represented the people who elected them by stating that officials should not have treated people in the manner in which they have been treated.

There seems to be an attitude in the Department of Social and Family Affairs that officials should take whatever they can from people. I do not know whether they are being rewarded for this activity or not, in regard to which I have tabled parliamentary questions recently. Some officials were being rewarded for their suggestions for saving money for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the money is not being taken from the poor, the weak, the illiterate or the sick. I have written to the Minister in regard to the case to which I referred and I want him to investigate the matter. If he does not, I will raise the matter in the House on the Adjournment and on the Order of Business. The Ceann Comhairle will rule me out of order but I will raise the issue anyway. I will highlight the issue and show the media what is happening in this country. It should not happen. I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter again today in regard to which the officials have stated that they are waiting for information. How can one use information about a person selling a few flags at a football match? Surely to God we are not that bad.

There is an anomaly in the pensions legislation, which the Government will have to examine. The House will remember that a scheme was introduced a few years ago for farmers and other self-employed people whereby they could pay contributions and claim a contributory pension. If they had ten years' worth of stamps they could qualify for a full contributory pension and part of the pension was also available to people who had not served the full time, although they were not permitted to buy into the system when they should have been.

There was also a category of people who availed of the scheme at that time and who had a full ten years' worth of stamps from paying their contribution. This category of people, because they worked in the 1930s, 40s or the 1970s and 80s and at some stage broke their PRSI contributions to the State, received less than a quarter or a half of the contributory pension because the contributions which were used to calculate the pension varied over the 20 or 30 years involved. On the other hand, some people who only made the ten years' worth of contributions were able to draw down a full contributory pension. I acknowledge that it is costly to address this problem but this must be dealt with.

This affects a minimal number of people. Everyone in the system is paying his or her contributions and will have their ten years' worth of stamps. The people to whom I refer must be looked after quickly to be fair to them. I have been made aware of a number of such cases. I ask the Minister and his Department to start examining these anomalies; it is only right. If the Minister deals with these issues, he can put out the spin and I will be the first person to rise in this House and congratulate him for doing something that is right and justified. This must be done because these people worked and paid some, although not all, of their contributions. However, if they had paid no contributions at all, they would be better off because they would have received their full contributory pension. I ask the Minister to examine this issue.

The Minister also needs to talk to the Minister for Finance because I can see a major difficulty arising in the next few years. In this week's edition of The Western People, the editor, Mr.Laffey, wrote a good article about the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment who, having made a mess of the health portfolio, will go on to make a pure mess of his present job. I could not believe the Minister told a State grant-aided manufacturing industry in Ireland to take its manufacturing business out of the country. This will lose Ireland thousands of jobs and the people involved will have to claim social welfare payments.

I do not know why Fine Gael did not take up this point. Going to China seems to be the fad of the moment. The Ministers went out on this charade. I must table a question to see what the trip cost, who travelled and to where. Whatever happened out there, whether it was the altitude or the flight, it went to all their heads because I listened to Ministers and the Taoiseach encouraging Irish manufacturers to go to China instead of staying in Ireland and making it competitive. They should put an end to the stealth taxes occurring daily.

We have a number of industries in this country which want to stay here but which are being targeted by IDA and Enterprise Ireland to relocate their manufacturing, which will create major unemployment. We will then go back to the bad old days and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs will have difficult decisions to make with regard to resources which will disappear if we do not realise what is happening.

The Minister needs to talk to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, and to the Taoiseach. I listened recently to a former Mayoman of the year who created major employment in Belmullet by establishing Selc Ireland which manufactures top lighting control products sold throughout the world. In Westport, Allergan will lay off 300 or 400 people, possibly in April. McHales in Ballinrobe and other companies all find things difficult because of the stealth taxes in this country. The only suggestion the Government has for such firms is that they take their manufacturing operations from Mayo to China. We are not talking of Chinese restaurants, although we have them as well. We do not want our manufacturing industries moved abroad because the situation is not that simple. It is time that the Government began to consider how to make this country more competitive again.

I do not know how the Minister will deal with the issue of the carer's allowance. I welcome the increase and I would like to see full-time carers get more. However, I compliment the Minister. He is making an effort in the area and has further increased the allowance this year. I will not take that away from the Minister. He has also increased the respite grant, on which I also compliment him.

I would like to see the details of how applications can be made by full-time carers who, because of means or whatever else, do not receive the grant. Those details should be made available as quickly as possible by the Department because there is a great deal of interest in them. I think the Minister has under-calculated in this area and will have many more people applying than he expects. Over the years, people who are full-time carers have come to me as a practising politician. They would not have made an application to the Department at the time because the husband or wife, whichever was to be the carer, was working and earning a good salary. I know that the Minister has increased the earnings threshold. That is good and I welcome it. The Minister expects about 9,000 applications but I believe there will be many more. What he will have otherwise is many disappointed people who feel they are full-time carers. We are told that there are 50,000 more full-time carers than calculated by the Minister. I hope that these people will get some kind of reward.

The Minister has begun to address the carer problem and has done reasonably well. Although improvements can be made, we cannot always be critical. I know we have raised the issue many times and I am aware of the cost factor, but there must be a recognition of the people who look after their loved ones 24 hours a day, seven days a week with no State recognition. I hope the Minister will deal with that.

I will speak later about the judgment in the Supreme Court this morning and keep my powder dry until then. I think the Minister may be promoted again out of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. If there is any justice, fair play, dignity or gumption in this country, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, must resign. The Taoiseach would never resign but he must go too on the basis that the Government made a very bad judgment regarding the case in question.

I listened to the Minister, which is why I commented to Deputy Haughey about spin. When I heard the Minister speak on the day he got his new job, I said I would give him a chance because he was talking sense. The Minister mentioned a particular category of people, widows, and said his widowed mother would be in touch with him. I intend to write to the Minister's mother to tell her to put some pressure on him. Widows are the forgotten category in this country. I will ask the Minister's mother to talk to him and put pressure on him to look after our widows. He could start next year by assisting young widows. He should include them in the free schemes which would be a great start for them and would give them some help.

I do not mind saying that widows have been let down by all governments over the years. I do not know why. Last year, when we had the savage 16 cuts, the first attack was on the widows. As practising politicians, we have seen young husbands and wives left widowed with five or six children. In all fairness to them, they have struggled and worked hard. It is an awful shock to lose the main earner in a household or to lose a partner. The remaining partner must then make a decision. The husband must decide whether to stay at home full-time or go out to work and bring in someone to help raise the family. A widow must try to raise a family and perhaps do some part-time work. She is looking over her shoulder to see if the Department of Social and Family Affairs is keeping an eye on her. The widowers and widows of this country, but in particular the widows, must be complimented. They did a great job over the years. They were housewives and workers and they raised their families with very little support from the State.

Will the Minister consider this matter with his Department and officials? I have worked with those officials and there is a bit of heart in them. I know they want to help on Committee Stage because I have talked to them. They only want the Minister to make the decision. They will make recommendations but the Minister must make the political decision, and that must be to look after widows.

I propose to share my time with Deputy Curran.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Bill gives us an annual opportunity to review the social welfare system. That the Bill also deals with pensions is important to many people.

We are all aware that the social welfare spend has increased by 60% in the past four years and I believe it has doubled since 1997. When we look at the increase and at the number of people in receipt of social welfare vis-à-vis the numbers in the early 1990s, we see the enormous ground gained. The rate of unemployment has dropped from 10% to 4.3%, although in my opinion and that of many others the rate is much less than the official figure because many of those counted as unemployed are unable to take up full-time employment and cannot hold down full-time jobs. We are as near as possible to full employment.

We also see that over the past decade there has been a major increase in social welfare payments and industrial. The latter have risen by 71% while the former have increased by between 87% and 95%, which is important. Some of the best schemes, certainly for the people I represent, have been the farm assist programme and the carer's benefit because they have been of enormous assistance in many cases, especially in rural Ireland.

When we talk of unemployment we must also look to the future. We must accept that we will have more non-nationals working in this country if we are to maintain the growth we have had. The projections show that we will need between 30,000 and 40,000 non-nationals annually added to the workforce along with our own people entering the workforce to maintain the economy at its current rate.

Child benefit is very important. That payment goes directly to mothers and it is money they can spend wisely to the benefit of their children. It now accounts for 66% of child income support. Only ten years ago, it amounted to less than €30. That is very important. The increases that we will see in child benefit are to be welcomed, and the Minister should be complimented on the way he has dealt with this matter in the budget.

We all welcome the changes proposed regarding the number of contributions required to receive disability benefit, but I still feel that there are several anomalies that may need to be examined regarding the entire disability sector and benefit recipients. In many cases, people are finding that because of minor technicalities they are debarred from receiving a payment. That is not in the best interest of people forced, in many circumstances through no fault of their own, to apply for disability benefit.

The increase in the carer's allowance of €14 per week is definitely welcome, as is the change regarding means. The carer's allowance has enabled many people to remain in their family homes and be looked after by relatives or friends. In doing so, it makes an enormous contribution to the quality of life they can expect. The savings made through not having those people in residential care in beds costing anything up to €1,500 per week have meant that they can be looked after by their families for a fraction of the cost and in an environment in which they wish to remain.

If we consider the number of full-time carers, we see an enormous increase. I have no doubt that, as time passes, we will see a further increase. The rise in the respite grant from €835 to €1,000 is to be welcomed, and the 33 full-time carers will very much appreciate that. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Ring on one matter, namely, that the numbers are greater than we appreciate. Many people are still ignorant of the fact that they may qualify, even for a reduced carer's allowance, and a national campaign to explain to people their entitlement as carers might be beneficial, both to them and to the economy, with a long-term financial saving to the State.

The assessment of capital for non-contributory schemes must be reviewed. I welcome the Minister's decision to increase the amount from €12,690 to €20,000. It will allow those with SIAS and so on to use them without being crucified and suffering a loss of means. However, at the moment the assessments made, mainly against capital means, are totally out of line with the return on that capital. We are all aware that the limit regarding receiving even a reduced pension is €76,000. That would return only approximately €13,000 per annum, which is the equivalent of €25 per week. However, those people are being debarred from non-contributory entitlements.

In many cases, part of that money may have been acquired over years or retained as the nest egg that Deputy Ring talked about being set aside for a rainy day. All capital should be assessed on market value. If a challenge were mounted in the courts regarding the assessment value of capital by social welfare, the Department would lose and find itself in a very awkward situation. One can only assess means against the actual value of something. I ask the Minister to review that and put a realistic value on capital for those in receipt of non-contributory pensions.

We must also examine the entire pensions system. I do not speak of the State pensions system. This Bill examines pensions operated by the various insurance companies, banks and so on. The solvency and liquidity of some schemes must be examined. Some of the funds are deficient, and there is currently a row in the ESB, which has a deficit in its pension fund. There is a problem for people in many such funds that the returns have recently been much lower than expected. The result is that some who had looked forward to very reasonable pension rates now find that they may not receive those when they reach the prescribed age. Those cases must be looked at.

However, there is also a need for the Department of Social and Family Affairs or some other Department to consider introducing a new type of pension, namely, one to which people could contribute an annual percentage of their income for a private pension other than through PRSI. That could be done. I compliment the NTMA on its return last year in comparison with private funds. The cost of maintaining some of those private funds and the charges levied on participants are not acceptable, either to me or to those who participate in them. Perhaps the Minister will look at that when he has time.

I welcome the Bill, which does a great deal and implements the changes made in the budget. However, there is a timely warning to everyone here that pensions must be reviewed and that we must examine other means of maintaining our current high standard of social welfare payments for those dependent on them while ensuring that there is no abuse.

I am pleased to speak on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2005 this afternoon, which implements many of the measures announced in this year's budget. The total package is worth €870 million, a very significant amount. That brings the projected level of social welfare expenditure for the year to over €12.25 billion, an increase of €1 billion, or 9%, on the previous year. With inflation at approximately 2%, an increase of 9% represents a real increase for recipients and must be viewed in that light.

I compliment the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, who is present this afternoon. Obviously, in the run-up to any budget, there are competing interests, and the Minister certainly engaged with various interest groups, his Cabinet colleagues and the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. We had numerous discussions on this area. It was as a result of his clear understanding and the areas that he prioritised that the increased funding in the budget was realised in the measures contained in this Bill.

On average, almost 1 million people receive a weekly social welfare payment. Another way of looking at it is that almost 1.5 million people, including dependants, benefit from such payments. Earlier I listened to several speakers, including, not so long ago, Deputy Boyle, who briefly referred to child benefit, saying that if it were increased more it might help subsidise crèche payments. He also said he would like to see increased payments for carers. There is not a Member in this House who disagrees. We can go through every single social welfare payment, and every Member will agree with increased expenditure. However, that is the luxury of opposition — to highlight aspirations.

The difference on this side of the House is that those aspirations must be delivered, something that happens in this Bill. There is also a cost involved. It is very easy for people to stand up and say that they would like to increase X, Y or Z. We have provided for increases in this Bill, but in a balanced manner, while at the same time providing funding for other areas in the budget.

I would like to deal with several specific provisions in the Bill, the first being child benefit, which has increased significantly in recent years. Previously, it could not have been said to have made up a meaningful payment to families, but now it can. In the Bill, the increase for the first and second child is €10 per month, from €131.60 to €141.60. For the third child and subsequent children, the increase is €12 per month, from €165.30 to €177.30. Those increases are real and substantial. For example, for a family with three children, the total monthly payment is now just under €450. I have often heard commentators and others suggest that the incomes of those in receipt of child benefit should be capped and so on. A person's income is not the significant figure. What is often more important is the disposable income available to that family.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn