DAIL DEBATES

Sitting Time
Sitting Date
12:10
27 February 2003

Mr. Kelleher: My colleagues eloquently outlined the positive elements
in the Bill. There is an underlying problem with community welfare
officers and racism. Allegations are frequently made in the media that
asylum seekers are getting money from officers to purchase cars, insurance
and so on. A deep and sinister element in society believe these
allegations and I plead with the Department and the health boards to
address the issue. They should establish a PR mechanism to enable them
respond to allegations by journalists and individuals by explaining the
entitlements of asylum seekers, refugees and nationals. I have
encountered a number of such cases in my constituency, but despite
numerous parliamentary questions I have been unable to ascertain the
facts. This kind of situation makes it very difficult for public
representatives to state categorically in the media that such allegations
are without foundation.
This is a very emotive issue and it is being used and fanned by elements
in society. The silence of the Department of Social and Family Affairs
and the Department of Health and Children encourages them. It is a
fundamental issue that must be addressed, especially as society becomes
more mult-cultural and more people come into the country for whatever
reason, be they asylum seekers or non-nationals on work permits. An
element of society appears to automatically think that those who are
non-Irish or non-white in colour are asylum seekers or refugees. No
Department and none of the health boards appears to be willing to confront
this way of thinking and explain the reality and the facts. While the
anti-racism commission is active, Departments and other bodies must be
proactive in monitoring the media to ensure that the correct message is
conveyed.
Huge efforts have been made to address the concerns of the elderly and
to ensure they have a decent quality of life. However, there is also a
need to ensure that adequate services are provided, such as one-stop-shops
and day care centres, to address the needs of isolated pensioners who live
alone. While the Government should continue to implement its commitment
to increase the weekly old age pension to  200, there is also a need to
improve services, such as day care centres, which will act as a focal
point where the elderly can congregate and have immediate access to
medical services.

[Mr. Kelleher]
We will have to address this matter, particularly because of the
demographic changes in society.
The average age is increasing. I read recently that there is one
pensioner per five workers and that there will be one pensioner per three
workers in 20 years' time. Therefore, there will be considerable
financial strain on society. The cheaper option is to ensure that we have
day-care centres and an infrastructure in place so the necessary expertise
will exist when the population grows older and becomes more dependent on
such services.
There are many elderly people. Society is becoming more fractured and
we do not have the same community spirit that we used to have. Neighbours
were able to look after the elderly in the past. We have had recent cases
in which elderly people were dead in their houses for three weeks before
anybody knew about it. This issue must be examined.
I compliment the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and all those
involved in the dental dispute for bringing it to a successful
conclusion. It was a major issue.
I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to debating the
positive initiatives contained therein, which will be implemented between
now and next year.

Mr. P. McGrath: I wish to share five minutes of my time with Deputy
Murphy.
I compliment Deputy Kelleher for raising the matter of migrants to our
country, for being brave enough to talk about it and for seeking
clarification on certain issues. It is important that it be discussed. It
is noteworthy that one of the provisions in this Bill is to restrict the
rent allowance paid to asylum seekers, immigrants and refugees. It is sad
that we are going down that road and I hope it does not reflect a shift in
Government policy, which will lead to our being anti-immigrant and
anti-refugee.
On Tuesday, at a meeting of the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence
and Women's Rights, the Minister for Justice estimated that the allocation
of funds to refugees would cost  300 million. Subsequently, he said that
the Government's overseas aid package is not up to the standard that he
would like because, in considering its size, he had to take into account
the expenditure on refugees. I was absolutely shocked by this statement
which required clarification, but the Minister did not offer any when I
sought it. He told me to talk to my constituents to see what they thought
about the issue. In other words, he was saying that he is doing what he
is doing because the public want him to. That is not the way to do
business and I am disgusted by it. I told him so, but unfortunately the
issue got no airing.
So many of the scripts that have been read by Government backbenchers
seem to have emanated from the same source. We have had many statistics
poured out regarding what the Government did and did not do, mainly what
it did over the past five years, and what the previous coalition
Government used to say. That is the approach Deputy Dermot Ahern adopted
when he was Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. He
frequently gave us distorted versions of history. I am beginning to
wonder if the same script writers are still at play. Will we have a
repeat of this approach in the coming years?
Backbenchers should talk to their constituents to elicit their
reaction. Statistics do not stick in their minds and they do not notice
the percentages by which their benefits increase, but they are not happy
with the increases they received in the most recent budget. They were led
to believe by the Government during the election campaign that there would
be huge increases. Unfortunately, they did not materialise. The Minister
said there would be no cutbacks, hidden or otherwise, but when it came to
the crunch we had them.
It is the job of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Ceann Comhairle to
uphold standards in the House. If one examines the budget speeches of the
Minister for Finance and the Minister for social welfare in the two
previous budget debates, one will notice that they said child benefit
would increase on a three year basis, with equal amounts being granted
over three years. Is that not a case of Ministers deliberately misleading
the House? Did they come in to apologise and say, "That was not the case
at all. We had no right to say that."? They did not. Who will uphold
the dignity of the House, ensure that standards are maintained and that
Ministers do not mislead the House? A feeling obtained that one could
promise anything in the run-up to an election.
What has happened in respect of the increases in child benefit? Miserly
increases have already been eaten away. The minimum payment in respect of
rent allowance has increased by  5. Therefore, if one has received an
increase of  6 in child benefit and there is a claw-back on one's rent
allowance, one is left with an increase of  1. To make matters worse,
there were increases in VAT and the cost of electricity, telephony, gas
and rent.
What about other changes that should have been made to the social
welfare system? I am sure the officials could write down some of the
things I have said and probably will repeat in respect of the child
dependant allowance. Maybe I should not be repeating myself but I feel
strongly about the issue. If one is on social welfare and has child
dependants, one gets a child dependant allowance. The rate of that
allowance has not changed since 1994, almost ten years ago. It is
remarkable that neither the previous nor present Minister has done
anything about it, despite the fact that many have asked them to,
particularly the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which is in touch with
really poor people.
If a family is in receipt of unemployment assistance, disability benefit
or old age contributory pension and has dependent children, each child is
worth  16.80 per week. If one is in receipt of a one-parent family
payment or an invalidity pension, one's child is regarded as different and
is worth  19.30. That is not fair. I thought we were supposed to treat
all children equally, but we do not. If one's father is on unemployment
benefit the Government gives him less, but if he is on invalidity pension
it gives him a little more. The child of someone on a widow's
contributory pension gets even more, a sum of  21.60. There is a
difference in the amount of child dependant allowance payable of about  
250 per annum depending on what social welfare benefits a family
receives. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul says it is unfair and should
be changed to a uniform system.
Family income supplement is an excellent system, involving reasonably
generous payments by the Department of Social and Family Affairs to help
families whose members work to stay at work. It was introduced by a
coalition Government some years ago and the rate of payment has increased
gradually. It is very worthwhile for families on low incomes. There is a
rule within the system that if one's income changes in the course of one's
receiving family income supplement, the Department will not withdraw the
payments.