DAIL DEBATES


Sitting Time
Sitting Date
17:00 (5 o'clock)
11 December 2002

Mr. Kelleher: It is nice to see a little passion coming from the
Opposition, it proves it is alive. I am pleased to have the opportunity
to speak on the Social Welfare Bill. It is an opportunity to outline in
detail what the Government has done in recent years in providing for those
dependent on social welfare payments right across the spectrum.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Text:

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

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

Mr. Kelleher: A Social Welfare Bill cannot be considered in an isolated context. We also have to look at the economic policies of recent years and to acknowledge that great strides have been made in job creation and tax reduction, particularly personal taxation. From the Opposition contributions, there seems to be a collective forgetfulness with regard to the Government's achievements of the last five years and a preoccupation with their short sojourn in office from 1994 to 1997. On any reasonable comparison, it has to be acknowledged that this Government has been very successful in implementing policies and addressing social problems.
Undoubtedly, the most effective avenue out of poverty is through
employment. This Government has created up to 400,000 extra jobs in the last five years.
One can only listen to the Labour Party's contributions to this debate with a wry smile. When that party had a Minister for Finance and a Minister for Social Welfare, pensions were increased by the paltry sum of £1.80.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Kelleher: It is also interesting to note what other party was in Government at that time.

Mr. Durkan: Was there not a Fianna Fáil - Labour Government not too long ago?

Mr. Kelleher: We have been treated to lectures on social inclusiveness by the Labour Party and accused of being a right-wing Government.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Kelleher without interruption.

Mr. Kelleher: In the final analysis, we will be judged as a Government which has secured significant increases, in the last five years, for pension and social welfare recipients across the board. The recent budgetary package, and the Social Welfare Bill which enacts it, clearly demonstrate the approach which the Minister for Social and Family Affairs is taking and her success at the Cabinet table in securing agreement that we have to protect the income standards of those at the bottom rung of the financial ladder. At a time when difficult decisions had to be made, the social welfare sector has been protected by the increase of  6, keeping it
ahead of inflation.
The Labour Party appears to judge success in terms of taxing workers to the back teeth, losing competitiveness, putting people on social welfare programmes and boasting of the amount of money it has spent on social welfare. In my view, the measure of success of any Government in relation to social welfare is to have less people on unemployment benefit and assistance. That indicates that a Government is working well, creating wealth and employment and making a positive contribution to social inclusiveness.
In parts of the country, especially in large urban areas, there have been significant social problems for many years. It was said that those areas were by-passed by the Celtic tiger.

Mr. Durkan: The poor old tiger.

Mr. Kelleher: There is every indication that the Celtic tiger effect is still there, having regard to the strong position of our economy relative to that of our European partners.

Mr. Durkan: How can the Deputy possibly say that?

Mr. Kelleher: Perhaps the story of the Celtic snail is another matter, from which Deputies on the other side of the House may have learned some lessons.

Mr. Durkan: The snail is still alive but the tiger is rather sick.

Mr. Kelleher: Even a sick tiger still runs faster than a live snail.

Mr. Durkan: That remains to be seen.

Mr. Kelleher: Improvements are clearly evident in areas where there was significant social deprivation, caused primarily by generations of massive long-term unemployment. If we are to be consistent in addressing those problems, we have to look at education in socially disadvantaged areas.
Most importantly, we must ensure that when people come off social welfare, they are rewarded for a fair day's work. Recent budgets have addressed that situation at the minimum wage level. Over 90% of people on the minimum wage are now out of the tax net. Looking ahead, the new programme for Government will ensure the further evolution of that situation so that those on low pay will not be subject to any form of income tax. That is a positive move.
The minimum wage will be part of ongoing negotiations. Although we have been accused of being right wing and not caring for those in need of assistance, the fact is that it was this Government which implemented the minimum wage. Looking back over the past ten years, the evidence is there for all to see. This Government's policies of reducing taxation and responsible budgetary measures meant that, in times of plenty, we were able to spend on the public sector.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy's party colleagues in Government certainly knew how to spend.

Mr. Kelleher: In changing international circumstances where the economy is now in a different gear, we are still in a position to bring forward a substantial budgetary package for social welfare. The Opposition appears to lose sight of that. Reference has been made to pension funds being raided. With due respect to the Labour Party, does it take advice from anybody? It is clear from the demographic structure and age profile of our population that we are sitting on a time bomb unless we address the need to invest now in order to ensure that we are in a position to pay for pensions in future years. For far too long, pensions have been paid out
of current revenue, workers were taxed to the point of being forced on to social welfare and the situation developed into a vicious circle, with generations of Irish people being driven abroad to find work.
Great strides have been made in the area of child benefit. From a level of less than  40 under the rainbow Government, we have now progressed to the present level of  125 for the first and second child. That is a major contribution towards addressing real poverty in the areas concerned.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Durkan: Will the Government use credit cards to distribute the lump sums?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Kelleher without interruption.

Mr. Kelleher: Deputy Durkan knows perfectly well that payments were brought forward for good reasons. It is disingenuous on the part of the Opposition to suggest that the Government was trying to buy votes.

Mary Coughlan: The social welfare payments were dealt with in
accordance with normal practice heretofore.

Mr. Durkan: The Government needs no advice with regard to buying
votes.

Mr. Kelleher: The Minister of State at the Department of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, was very apt in his recent
reference to the filibustering tactics of Fine Gael. Year after year in this Chamber, Governments have been accused of announcing social welfare increases at budget time but not implementing them until several months later. This Government has consistently brought back payment dates which now coincide with the calendar year in most cases. That is a very positive step to address the issue of child poverty.

I welcome the large increases in child benefit in recent years. A note of caution must be sounded, however. If we are to target the areas in which child benefit is most required, we must examine whether it is sustainable to increase child benefit across the board, regardless of income level.

Mr. Durkan: Tell us more.

Mr. Kelleher: My views are well known. I represent a constituency with a diverse socio-economic make-up. In difficult times one targets resources towards those who most need it. No Member on this side of the House would disagree.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy will be popular with Mná na h-Éireann when he tells them this.

Mr. Kelleher: I pose the question. The question needs to be examined in the context of whether we are getting resources to children in the most efficient way.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy is making a courageous decision.

Mr. Kelleher: While not directly related to the Social Welfare Bill, 2002, the issue of planning for child care facilities is creating insurmountable problems in urban areas. People are unable to get planning permission in housing estates for the provision of small crèches which is driving the cost of child care through the roof. Why can a person not be granted planning permission for four or five crèche places, under health board guidelines, on housing estates? I am sure the Green Party would support a measure whereby people going to work could drop their children to a crèche on their estate rather than driving long distances across the city. If we keep increasing child benefit and continue to have limited
crèche places, we will drive up the cost of the child care. We must
examine the issue carefully because, while one Department is providing funding for child care, other Departments and local authorities are refusing to take their responsibilities seriously to address an issue that is creating significant problems for working parents, particularly in urban areas.
There is a huge black economy which we must acknowledge if we are
serious about protecting children. We must ensure child care facilities are up to the high standards the health boards demand. There should be some mechanism whereby we can bring the child care industry into the tax net to ensure everything is official, above board and that people who are paying large child care costs can avail of some sort of tax rebate.

Mr. Healy: That is just another way of fleecing the taxpayer. The
Government has been talking about that for years.

Mr. Kelleher: While we are talking we are also doing, unlike Deputy Healy, who does a great deal of talking but no doing.
Any Government can be judged on how it cares for the elderly. This
Government can be judged to have cared for the elderly fairly with the pension payments provided for in recent years. The elderly made
significant sacrifices and played a major part in getting us where we are today. The generation that got through the difficult times of the 1960s and 1970s are now the people we are caring for and they deserve it. I congratulate the Government for the increases in pensions. The Government gave a commitment in the 1997 manifesto that it would bring pensions above the £100 threshold and broke that threshold by a substantial amount. Even in changed budgetary circumstances, we were able to give a  10 increase to old age pensioners and I hope the Minister will continue to argue for old
age pensions that are well ahead of inflation and that we strive to meet our target of  200 by 2007. For many years, widows were left behind when it came to social welfare payments and I welcome the increased payments to them proposed in this Bill.
It is disappointing the Labour Party benches are empty because when
Deputy Quinn was Minister for Finance he had budget surpluses but only managed to take 38,000 people out of the tax net in three budgets and added just £1.80 to the old age pension. It is disingenuous to say economic circumstances were different then because the same circumstances pertained up until this budget and, even in difficult times, we were able to make major increases. Overall, the next few years will tell much about how we shape ourselves as a society. If we have difficult decisions to
make in the years ahead, we must still ensure that the most marginalised will be protected by social welfare packages that ensure they stay ahead of inflation. I am convinced the correct budgetary policy is being pursued because the last time we found ourselves in difficult circumstances, when Governments refused to make tough decisions, this country slid into a quagmire of financial recklessness, the population fell to a critical level and many of our young people left the country with a poor education. We have forced generations out of the country because of reckless spending and the inability of Governments to take tough decisions. I will defend any Government - even on unpopular decisions - to ensure we retain a fiscal policy that ensures prosperity on a longer term basis. No more short-sighted decisions like we had in the early 1980s, when people failed to grasp the nettle and make difficult decisions. That period of mass emigration is the legacy of previous coalition Governments.
I congratulate the Minister on her first time presenting a Bill in the Dáil. I wish her success with her new portfolio. I know she argued admirably at the Cabinet table in view of the fact there are large increases in social welfare payments across the board, particularly for the elderly. I commend this Bill to the House and hope that, when all its measures are implemented, they will ensure the standard of living of the most marginalised in our community is protected from inflationary pressures and that next year we will do the same thing.