15 December 2005
Dr. Henry: I thank Senator O’Toole for sharing time with me. I very much welcome the changes the Minister has managed to achieve for those in his charge. The increases are very welcome. Having been obliged to deal with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and its predecessors for many years, I welcome the attitude of those officials who have worked there in recent years. There is a total change in how the people who must live on social welfare pensions are now treated. This is welcome.
The increase in the income disregards is an extremely good idea. This means not only that older people can earn some more money but can also maintain an interest in something. This is extraordinarily important in allowing them to maintain some level of independent existence.
The Minister will be aware that I have been involved with lone parents for many years. I always hoped they would not have to be dependent on social welfare. Increasing the amount they can earn before they lose their benefits is an extremely good idea because it will give them a taste of independence. A great number of lone parents are very demoralised, therefore, it is important to give them independence and show them what they can do.
The carer’s allowance must also be welcomed because carers are doing a magnificent job, often to the detriment of their health, economic situation and the possibility of going back into whatever employment they had. The €1,200 for respite care should have been further increased. This amount will only pay for approximately one week in a nursing home, which is not a great deal of respite for someone who is looking after a person for the whole year. It would be wonderful if this amount was doubled next year.
On child poverty, the Minister was correct to address the under six age group, which is the most important grouping. All the research indicates that this is the most important time to address child poverty. Of course, much more is needed which I hope will happen next year. There has been criticism that the child benefit scheme is not means tested. I would not criticise this because one never knows how much money a mother is receiving to bring up her children. If there is a problem about means testing in the future, the Minister can decide to tax it. However, I would prefer he left it alone.
The extension in maternity leave is to be welcomed. I often quote in the House my experience of having children when there was no maternity leave. One could easily lose one’s job if one did not get back to work after having a baby. Going back to work two days after I had my second child was not a good idea.
Senator O’Toole said that we should encourage people to have more children. I agree that we should do so, not because we need them to pay tax in future but because we need someone to look after us. It will be pretty miserable if there is no one to look after us. This country now has a fertility rate of 2.1 and Italy is down to 1.6, even though it has a lot of immigrants and taking into account that Italians have large families. Italy is now starting to pay low-income women with a crisis pregnancy a considerable amount of money to encourage them to maintain the pregnancy. It reckons that at least 10% to 15% of abortions take place for economic reasons. If one examines the crisis pregnancy agency reports, one will see that women who had abortions often did so for economic reasons. This is an area the Minister might examine in the future. It could be called a fertility allowance or something like that.
I was pleased to see the increases in family income support but I would like it to be publicised more. The Family Support Agency also received an increase in funding. When I worked in the Rotunda Hospital, I frequently found that people were not aware of family income support. I do not know how this happened, but social workers were constantly pointing it out to people who were more than eligible for it. It would be a help if there was more publicity about this scheme.
I would like the Minister to reply to two matters at the end of the debate. At present an adult child can only give a parent €3,000 a year as a gift, which could be extraordinarily useful, without the parent having to pay tax. I have written to the Minister for Finance on several occasions proposing an increase in this amount of money, because the child has already paid tax on it. Why could this not be done if it would help the parent to stay at home? Perhaps the parent could employ someone to help him or her. Will the Minister raise with the Minister for Finance the fact that a child can only give an elderly parent €3,000 tax free, even though this money is already taxed?
I spoke recently to a woman who was very annoyed. Her husband who died recently had paid PRSI. While she is currently working and paying PRSI, she thought that she would get a widow’s pension and a pension of her own. Both of them paid PRSI, however, I am repeatedly told that people cannot receive two State pensions. As they both paid PRSI, could the Minister explain the rationale behind this? I congratulate him on all he managed to do in the budget.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech
