The Technical Group was in possession and ten minutes remain in this slot.
Social Welfare Code: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy Barry Cowen on Wednesday, 2 November 2011:
That Dáil Éireann:
recognises that the social welfare budget trebled from 2000-2010 and forms a vital safety net for vulnerable members of the community and those adversely affected by the economic crisis that has hit Europe;
in addition recognises the reductions in benefits borne already by social welfare recipients due to the crisis and the need to achieve the fiscal targets laid out under the EU/IMF programme;
agrees that these savings can be achieved through tackling social welfare fraud and increased employment, rather than further reductions to present social welfare rates;
acknowledges the economic need and moral duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society and provide adequate supports to the large numbers of people unemployed due to the economic crisis;
recognises the need for more labour activation measures and interaction between the taxation and welfare system to ensure that work is worthwhile;
notes that the creation of every thousand jobs reduces the Social Protection budget on average by €25 million between increased social welfare contributions and fewer on the live register;
affirms that money distributed on social welfare is primarily spent on necessities by the recipients, generating economic activity;
calls on the Government to fulfil its promises under the Programme for Government and maintain headline social welfare rates and to introduce means by which self-employed people can be insured against unemployment and sickness support; and
further calls on the Government not to reduce social welfare expenditure by stealth and to maintain other social welfare payments such as the Widow's Pension, disability benefits and illness benefits.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"recognises the severe impact on families, individuals and communities as a result of the closure of businesses and loss of employment arising from the economic collapse caused by the policies of the previous Government;
recognises the vital role played by spending on social welfare in enabling people to live life with dignity;
acknowledges the contribution spending on social welfare also makes to sustaining economic activity in communities throughout the State and, in particular, notes that social welfare spending of €20.62 billion accounts for 13% of GDP and recognises the need to ensure that the current deficit in the Social Insurance Fund is addressed;
affirms that sustainable public finances are a prerequisite for maintaining an adequate system of social protection as well as achieving future economic growth and stability;
welcomes the steps taken by the Government to sustain existing employment, promote job creation and lay the foundation for economic recovery, in particular, the National Employment and Entitlement Service, the jobs initiative including the national internship scheme, JobBridge, Springboard, the halving of the lower rate of employer PRSI and the targeted lowering of VAT for the hospitality and tourism sectors;
welcomes the new anti-fraud initiative launched by the Department of Social Protection in September, 2011 and its importance in maintaining the integrity of the social welfare system; and
encourages the Government to press ahead with the other social welfare reforms outlined in the programme for Government and in particular to target the development of options and opportunities in education, training and work experience in order to help people to get back to work."
— (Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton).
Social welfare payments are for the most vulnerable and marginalised in society. I would like to prioritise a certain group, those with disabilities, mental health issues and their carers because these groups have enough to deal with in their lives and should not have to live in fear that their social welfare payments are under threat. A civilised just society would prioritise these people and assure them that their payments are not and will not be threatened. Another group that should be left in peace is senior citizens. At a recent forum in the docklands area of Dublin, they outlined their concerns as we approach the budget. They have come through difficult times at other stages in our history and they have real concerns about their lives and their living standards. One further group that is suffering is the self-employed whose businesses have folded. They need protection as they are unemployed and many are without sickness benefits.
There is a considerable budget for social welfare and it must be used wisely. Efforts must be made to eradicate social welfare fraud which is estimated at 2.4% to 4.4% of total annual welfare expenditure, more than €0.05 billion of which would go a long way towards increasing payments for those in need and even, perhaps, bring back the Christmas bonus which has made a huge difference in certain areas.
Research shows that much social welfare funding is lost through administrative and customer error rather than fraud. In 2009 and 2010, almost 70% of over-payments were due to error. Nobody wants to be unemployed. When this happens, those who are unemployed want to get back working, retraining or avail of the opportunity of further education. The system must help people to do that. I acknowledge the huge workload of the staff in the Department of Social Protection. It involves much administrative procedure and payments that go out to more than 2 million people weekly. There is a need to create a simpler benefit system, a system that meets the needs of the people and not the other way around. The recent flooding incident has shown the need for emergency funding while the urgent payments of €250 have not made an appreciable difference for those who are without insurance because of having been flooded previously.
Austerity measures will not bring about growth. If inflation is likely to rise by 1.5% in the coming year, welfare rates must be adjusted accordingly. Without our social welfare system our poverty rate would be very considerable. I support the point made by Social Justice Ireland that we must limit the impact of budgetary measures on those who can least afford to carry them.
The report of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which it launched yesterday — its pre-budget submission — the title of which reads "Don't cut their Lifeline, Poverty Hurts Us All", says it all.
The design of the social welfare system is part of the problem. There are many poverty traps with which we are all familiar. The design of the system rewards a certain type of behaviour. The structural aspects need to change in tandem with the eradication of social welfare fraud; for example, if a person on social welfare makes application for a medical card and gives two different addresses. The system works against the person who has an entitlement to claim a social welfare payment towards which they have contributed. The 400,000 plus people who are unemployed are embarrassed when they claim that to which they are entitled to claim.
Social welfare is visible. If a person has to make a claim that person is visible. If there is a constant hammering of those who are defrauding the system, how are people to know who is defrauding the system? This further humiliates those who are making a valid claim. The over-emphasis on defrauding the system is seriously problematic.
Fr. Seán Healy of Social Justice Ireland appeared before a meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform yesterday, which I watched on television last night. What he said reminds me of something that was said to me some time ago, that we need people to be working, even if it is on a part-time basis. Essentially, what was said, and it resonated with me, was that we pay people to do nothing; we pay people to pay them to do nothing and then we pay people to make sure they do nothing. If they are working, even on a part-time basis, it eliminates much of that component of the social welfare system, which is regressive. It is bad enough for people to be claiming social welfare. We have got to be careful in highlighting the defrauding of the system, which has to be eradicated, but we must ensure that those who are already humiliated are not further humiliated by an inappropriate harping on particular aspects of the welfare system.
I am pleased the Minister is present to listen to our comments. I congratulate her on having her colleague elected in her constituency.
I was a member of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs in the last Dáil with Deputy Burton, now Minister. She had many trenchant views on many issues. I had many a good tiff with the then Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív. The current Minister understands the position and is carrying out reviews on which I support her. As previous speakers have said there are many anomalies in the system.
The social welfare system has failed us. We are in a crisis with huge unemployment. Some 99.9% of the unemployed do not wish to be unemployed. They want to play a meaningful role in providing for their families and paying their taxes.
The former self-employed have been badly treated. They had the energy, enthusiasm and vigour to set up business and employ others. Now that their businesses have failed because of the downturn, they are entitled to nothing. They are deemed ineligible for back to work initiatives and so on, on the basis of their spouses' income or some other silly reason. It amounts to discrimination. These are people with vision, passion and enthusiasm — like many others on social welfare — who could provide us with a way out of this morass. If they receive sufficient support they will each be in a position to employ one, two or more persons and thus make a major dent in the unemployment rate. They must be allowed to avail of back to education initiatives in order to acquire the new skills necessary to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Social welfare fraud must be tackled. Deputy Catherine Murphy pointed out that we are paying people to be idle while also paying others to police them and ensure they are out of work. We must change the focus entirely and ensure we have a pro-work system. Those who want to work should be encouraged to do so. I take this opportunity to compliment the community welfare officers who came to the fore during the recent flooding in Dublin, as in other crises. They do incredible work every day and are at the coalface of the current recession.
I was astonished to see this motion on the Order Paper. That Fianna Fáil Members who were instrumental in making massive cuts in social welfare benefits to the most vulnerable in our society should put forward this type of motion is incredible. The current Government is implementing many of the cuts introduced by its Fianna Fáil predecessors. Thus we have Fianna Fáil past, the Government effectively operating as Fianna Fáil present and a pretence at Fianna Fáil future in the stance of that party in opposition. It is all poppycock.
I support the Sinn Féin amendment to the motion. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, made a poor choice of words when she referred to "lifestyle choice" in respect of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. The new anti-fraud initiative referred to in the Government amendment is also a cause for concern. Much of the savings that could be made under this initiative relate to administrative errors within the Department rather than fraud on the part of claimants. However, some people are turning into Citizen Smith in this regard. They are able to call the Department anonymously and declare that a particular person is engaged in welfare fraud. A welfare officer is then required to visit the home of the accused person, whose dignity is thereby attacked. If no fraud is proved, the person who made the claim is not accountable in any way. Urgent change is required in this regard. If a person claims another individual is guilty of fraud, the former should be obliged to provide his or her name, address and PPS number and, where the claim is found to be untrue, be subject to a fine.
I seek a categorical assurance from the Minister that there will be no reduction in the rate of child benefit in the upcoming budget. This is a crucial benefit which has been reduced three times in the past three years. There must be no further reduction in this vital support.
Notwithstanding the national concerns in respect of the upcoming budget, I welcome the opportunity to commend the Department of Social Protection on its efforts to restore fiscal stability by eradicating abuse of the social welfare system and instigating job creation methods. The only way to alleviate our difficulties is to create jobs. We are all acutely aware of the financial constraints facing householders throughout the State and that individuals and communities are fearing the implications of budget 2012. The public is fully aware of the adverse effects of the economic crisis of recent years, particularly in the context of the high level of unemployment which, in turn, has resulted in emigration.
There are extensive challenges ahead, but it is imperative that we, as a Government and as a people, are realistic. The Government will take in €42 billion in tax and PRSI this year, of which an estimated €20 billion will be spent by the Department of Social Protection. Readjustments must be made within the Department if a stable budgetary position is to be reached. Moreover, there is a requirement on the Government to achieve the fiscal targets set out in the EU-IMF programme. All Departments have had to re-examine their methodologies in order to achieve fiscal stability.
The past 14 years saw the previous Administration introduce a series of giveaway budgets which have inevitably left us economically deficient, with a level of expenditure which far exceeds our income. That Administration was asleep at the wheel, allowing bankers, developers and international private investors free rein to bring this country to its knees in their quest for a quick profit. Under its watch, economic stress testing was an inane practice. Moreover, there was a complete and unmerited disregard of the services sector in general, with the primary focus being on the lucrative construction industry. Many sectors within the services industry suffered significantly as they were abandoned in pursuit of rapid financial gain. In the past three years we were subjected to the draconian initiatives of a Fianna Fáil Government whose sole purpose was to protect the wealthy by imposing unnecessary cuts on the vulnerable.
That is not the practice of this Government. Our primary aim is to protect the vulnerable, sustain employment, promote job creation and lay the foundations for economic recovery. The level of constraint placed on the shoulders of the Minister, who must operate within the parameters of the EU-IMF deal, is an unforgivable legacy of the previous Administration. That legacy deal makes her room for manoeuvre extremely limited. However, I welcome the stimulus measures she has initiated in recent months. I refer in particular to the halving of employer PRSI and the introduction of a national training fund levy. One of the most affirmative initiatives of the Department has been its concentration on reducing social welfare costs by encouraging those currently on the live register to take up employment and self-employment.
The results have proved encouraging, with the implementation of the JobBridge scheme producing 2,508 opportunities with host organisations and sole traders. To date, 2,185 interns have commenced work under the scheme. The Government is determined to provide the maximum number of people with the opportunity to define and improve their training and skills. JobBridge offers a great opportunity for individuals to gain experience within niche industries which may in turn lead to full employment. I welcome the steps taken by the Government to nourish existing employment and promote job creation.
I also commend the Minister on the introduction of the new anti-fraud initiative. In 2011, the total budget for social welfare is estimated at €20 billion, which equates to 39% of gross Government expenditure. It is a mind-blowing statistic. The Department estimates that the level of fraud and error in the system ranges between 2.5% and 4.5% of total annual expenditure, with several specific benefits identified. However, similar patterns occur throughout the Continent. In other words, we are not greatly out of sync in this regard. Most social welfare subsidies which go awry tend to do so due to administrative and customer errors rather than intentional efforts on the part of claimants to defraud the system. I also recognise that the integrity of our national social welfare scheme depends on fairness so that those who have been hit by hard times and need the most get the most. As the net contributors of funds, the taxpayers are demanding the best possible stewardship of their contributions so that scarce resources go to those who merit them. In that regard I welcomed the inclusion of stronger measures to extend powers to social welfare inspectors to investigate employers' contractors and subcontractors.
I am aware that the Department is fully committed to recovering 100% of overpayments arising as a result of fraud or error. Australia has cross-checking of data with information consistent across all public bodies. However, it has the advantage of having a national database against which to check records which we do not have. The USA has similar schemes and systems in place. I realise the importance of relative cost effectiveness in analysing efficient counter-fraud actions especially given that social welfare represents €20 billion of the €42 billion earned from tax and PRSI. The number of anonymous reports has increased significantly in the past nine months, with more than 12,000 reports made up to the end of September compared with less than 9,000 in the same period in 2010. Advertising campaigns have been launched to combat fraudulent activities in the system. There is an ever-increasing acceptance among the public that they do not want to see the State defrauded.
The Department of Social Protection has recently undergone one of the most profound organisational transitions in the public service with the transfer of the community welfare service into the Department. This combined with the transfer of community and employment services activated under FÁS to the Department is a welcome component of the programme for Government and once completed should provide a more direct and efficient mechanism in providing income maintenance and support to families.
We all recognise the difficulty a person from a disadvantaged area faces. I do not envy the onerous task the Minister faces in trying to stay on course. However, she finds herself in such a situation as a result of what happened in the so-called boom. Where were the audits, and the checks and balances over the past 14 years that allowed the country to get so out of sync? What audits were done on all the houses built? Many of those who are unemployed came from the construction sector. It was a very bad administration that allowed one section of the economy to become a complete bubble and not consider the other sectors. Everybody is talking about jobs and we understand the equation that by getting people back working the social welfare costs reduce.
Since 2002 I carried out an exercise beginning with Spectra Photo Labs in Tralee. From 2002 — I did not look before that — we lost 50 jobs every week. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, tried to raise that matter on numerous occasions in this House during the term of the previous Administration but he was completely ignored.
I wish to clarify that Deputy Ann Phelan is sharing this slot with Deputies O'Mahony, Lawlor and Ciarán Lynch.
I thought I would have more time to contribute to the debate. However, with the time constraints I will stick to a few points that are meant to be constructive. The motion and the amendments all contain points we would all support. I want to avoid the blame game about what people should have done in the past. The bottom line for the upcoming budget is that the most vulnerable need to and must be protected. I know the Minister and her Government colleagues have tried in every way possible to do that since they took office and they will do so in the budget also. However, the task is to distribute the €20 billion that is available in an even-handed and fair way.
The best way to reduce the need for social welfare expenditure is to protect and create jobs. The jobs initiative announced when the new Government took over did not solve everything but was a significant step and pointed us in the direction in which we need to go. My experience is that all the people I meet want work. In particular young people want a start in life and structure on their life. They want to get up in the morning and go out. That is the culture we need to promote. While I know it will not be able to produce 100,000 jobs in coming months, CE schemes represent tremendous value for money. There is a perception that there is a very limited range of work that can be done in communities with them. However, these schemes employed 40,000 people in the 1980s, but there are only 22,000 now. There is potential for giving people that structure to their lives and giving them a start in work.
A few weeks ago I sat in a room with 20 participants on a CE scheme in County Mayo. If the Minister is ever in that area I invite her to come and see that scheme. I came away uplifted by each of them articulating what it meant for them to be on the scheme, what work they were doing and the services they were delivering to the local community. There is great potential for expanding those schemes. While we know there is limited money, those schemes can both deliver value for money and give people a meaning in life.
In addition to increasing the number of schemes we should also expand the criteria for them. At the moment people under 25 cannot join them. In my constituency more than 13,000 people under 25 are unemployed. It would represent a start for them because many of the people I mentioned a few minutes ago are in the process of moving on to setting up their own businesses as a result of the skills they learned on the schemes, which is what they should be about.
I previously raised the matter of people wanting to reskill. Some university graduates have lost the potential for employment given the degrees they have. They have gone back to try to reskill at a lower level but will not get a back to education grant as a result of it being a lower skill. They want to work but they are trapped. Flexibility needs to be introduced and the barriers need to be eliminated.
We need to look at the self-employed. These are people who have contributed to the economy and have employed people. All the people they previously employed are getting their entitlements but they are not entitled to anything. I am not suggesting it will be easy but those people need help and that inequity in the system needs to be addressed. The Minister has a difficult task in which I wish her well. I know she will protect the vulnerable as much as possible.
Unlike the previous speaker, I have a criticism of the amendment tabled by Sinn Féin and I would also like to make a few points to the Minister. The Sinn Féin amendment is extraordinary and that party is like a two-headed beast, with one head in this part of the island critical of what is going on with regard to social welfare payments and constantly seeking a reversal of cuts made by the previous Administration and proposed by the current one and the other, which is involved in Government in the North, reducing public spending between 2011 and 2015 by £4 billion sterling and current spending by 8%. While the head in this part of the island is totally opposed to the introduction of rates, the head in the North is increasing household rates, affecting the most vulnerable. The head up North is also imposing cuts in the social housing budget. I find it difficult to stomach the Sinn Féin amendment to this motion, which is critical of what is happening here. Would Sinn Féin, if head of the Irish Government, seek to reduce the widow's pension of €188 to £100 sterling or its equivalent of €118? I find Sinn Féin's amendment, which criticises the Fianna Fáil motion, cynical.
I compliment the Minister on the information I received from her in response to a parliamentary question in regard to the jobs initiative and JobBridge scheme. I also welcome that her Department is checking out people applying for places on these schemes. As mentioned by the previous speaker, we need to come up with ways of reducing the overall social welfare budget. One such way is to get people back to work. The jobs initiative announced earlier this year is being worked through. As mentioned by Deputy Phelan, approximately 2,200 people have already taken up internships. I was delighted to hear by e-mail this week from a person whom I helped get an internship that he has taken up a full-time position and that the company for which he is working is to take on an additional ten people. I welcome that there are currently more than 2,500 companies involved in the scheme.
I welcome also that the Department of Social Protection is seeking tenders for evaluation of the JobBridge scheme, an initiative of the Minister which came to my attention by way of the e-tender list. This will ensure money is being well spent. Evaluation of the scheme will involve assessment of the impact of the scheme on the unemployed so as to inform future policy development in this area. I welcome that initiative and hope it will be introduced in respect of other schemes and programmes in this area.
The Deputy has one minute remaining.
I welcome that evaluation of the JobBridge scheme will be undertaken by an external body. Often people from outside the Civil Service have a different perspective and viewpoint on issues. People at the lower level of the Civil Service who have direct contact with social welfare recipients often have knowledge of people actively engaged in social welfare fraud. It is important they are brought into the fold and that the information they may have is utilised. People at management level are often too far removed from the contact zone and as such have no idea of what is going on.
I welcome the Minister's initiatives in this area and look forward to working with her into the future. I again thank her for the information provided to me by way of response to parliamentary questions.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and thank Deputy Cowen for tabling it. In responding to the motion before the House, I would like to deal with three particular issues, including what Government action has been taken since this Government took office at the beginning of this year and the Sinn Féin amendment. I note Sinn Féin's absence from the House this morning. It is one thing to be absent for a debate but to be absent when one has an amendment before the House is bad manners and disrespectful. The final issue on which I will speak is the Fianna Fáil motion before the House.
The EU-IMF agreement commits the Government to a further adjustment of at least €3.6 billion in the forthcoming budget, including a reduction in expenditure of €2.1 billion. The Department of Social Protection has a major contribution to make in achieving a more balanced budget as it accounts for almost 13% of GDP. The Department of Social Protection is a major area of expenditure in this State and will have to be examined in the context of the forthcoming budget. Examples of expenditure in the Department can be broadly divided into three areas, the first of which is supports for people of working age, which accounts for approximately 55% of overall expenditure or just under €11 billion, including job seeker's allowance and benefit and carer's allowance in respect of which the amount is €762 million per annum. The second area of expenditure is retired and older people, which accounts for almost 29.6% of overall expenditure or nearly €6.1 billion. Some 60% of the Department's budget allocation of €3.6 billion is spent on the contributory State pension, which is the single biggest social welfare scheme. A further €951 million and €920 million will be required in the future for State and non-contributory State pensions and widow and widower's contribution pensions respectively. The third area of expenditure is support for children and families, which accounts for almost 12% of expenditure or just under €4 billion of the Department's annual budget. More than €2 billion is spent on child benefit. It is estimated that almost €700 million will be spent on the qualified child increase and that almost €200 million will be spent on family income supplement. These are major areas of expenditure.
This debate is about finding the most effective way of dealing with unemployment and the social welfare issue in this State. We know that when a job is lost the cost to the Exchequer in social welfare payments and ancillary supports, be it mortgage interest supplement, rent supplement and so on, is approximately €20,000. That does not take into account the personal cost of unemployment and the type of anguish and long-term difficulties it can cause for families and individuals. The most positive way of addressing the social welfare issue is to reduce the number of people who are unemployed and to facilitate the maximum number of unemployed people to take up employment or become self-employed, which is the main priority of the Government. The Government set out its stall in this area as soon as it took office by way of the jobs initiative in respect of which a budget of €500 million has been provided, a budget we were told by the outgoing Administration could not be provided because the EU-IMF deal could not be renegotiated. However, within a short period the Government set out its stall and showed that job creation is its number one priority.
Some examples of the jobs initiative approach is the reduction from 8.5% to 4.25% in the rate of employers' PRSI payable on behalf of employees on the national minimum wage, which is a significant incentive for employers to take on new staff. There has also been a reduction in VAT from 13.5% on 9% in respect of a range of tourism related goods and services. Feedback from that sector indicates this measure has been positive. For example, hotel accommodation in the constituency of West Cork, which is the constituency of the Acting Chairman, Deputy McCarthy, increased following the introduction of this measure. Many tourist regions in Ireland have recorded a positive impact of this measure during the summer in 2011. As mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Phelan, the national internship programme, which provides work placement for six or nine months, was also introduced.
JobBridge assists in breaking the cycle in which jobseekers are unable to secure a job without having experience as a result of being new entrants to the labour market following education, or as unemployed workers who have trained in new skills. The scheme also gives a real opportunity to gain valuable experience to bridge the gap between study and the beginning of a working life.
Another aspect of JobBridge needs to be explained. At present, graduates leaving university and institutes and education are unable to use their qualifications in the employment market. JobBridge allows them to obtain work experience so that when the economy picks up they will have both their qualifications and some real work experience. The scheme allows people to continue their studies in the workplace and it gives them an edge when looking for long-term employment. I am happy to report that as of Thursday, 27 October 2011, a total of 2,508 internship opportunities with host organisations are available on the website. In addition, 2,185 interns have commenced internships under the JobBridge scheme. The participation in the scheme has been successful.
Another measure implemented by the Government and which was a key commitment in the programme for Government is the establishment of a commission on taxation and social welfare. Its task is to examine the operation and the interaction of the tax and social welfare protection systems; to recommend cost-effective solutions as to how employment disincentives can be improved to achieve better outcomes in the area of child poverty; and to identify the specific practical, institutional and administrative improvements of their operation.
This is just one of a number of reforms which the Government proposes. Organisational transformation is required. For example, as has been mentioned by other Deputies, the community and employment services operated by FÁS and the community welfare service which was formerly part of the HSE, are being transferred to the Minister's Department. These transfers are a key element and have been set out clearly in the programme for Government. We have seen the waste in these Departments during the time of the previous Administration. We have restructured these services in order to target those participating in those programmes rather than being for the benefit of those running the services. When fully completed, this will be a new organisation providing efficient and complementary income maintenance and related services to families with children, people of working age and retired and older people.
It is surprising that Sinn Féin Deputies are not present in the Chamber to listen to the debate on their proposed amendment.
They are all on Twitter.
Perhaps they are in Stormont implementing cuts and are too busy to attend this Chamber.
The proposed Sinn Féin amendment to the motion does not make any mention of reform or of dealing with social welfare fraud. It contains the usual litany of accusations against the Government. It attacks a quote from a Minister. If we were to document Sinn Féin's quotes and actions over the years, we would run out of time in this debate. Sinn Féin's approach is very disingenuous. The Sinn Féin alternative is about collapsing the Irish economy. This is the end game of its argument.
Mr. Papandreou in Greece is smoking out those who share the Sinn Féin argument. I would be very surprised if any Sinn Féin Deputy were to refer to Mr. Papandreou's actions as an argument to support its own when he is smoking out those holding such views in the Greek Parliament and nailing them down.
The Fianna Fáil motion refers to protecting the vulnerable. It states that households on social welfare spend their money on the weekly necessities, which is true. However, so do people on the minimum wage. The greatest attack ever made on low income families was the attack made by Fianna Fáil on the minimum wage this time last year when that Government took €40 out of the pocket of every low income worker in this country.
What about the JLCs?
Fianna Fáil did this in a most disingenuous manner when it said this was a demand——
Which the Deputy supports.
——made by the troika and by the IMF.
The Government took it back.
It was no such thing. It was later discovered in this House that this was a Fianna Fáil proposal. When we came into office and renegotiated that deal, it was very evident from our discussions with the troika that this had been a Fianna Fáil proposal because the troika——
The Deputy will make a few choices himself in a few weeks.
——had no difficulty with the removal of the proposal. I say to Fianna Fáil Deputies that they are welcome to the real world.
The Deputy's party is in the real world now. They have sold everything.
The real world will be in six weeks' time.
Thank you, Deputy, your time is up.
We will take on board what they are saying today but the hubris they exercised in this House over the years has come to an end and the mark they left on this House by taking €40 a week out of the pockets of the most vulnerable workers will not be forgotten. They will be continually reminded of it.
The time slot is 30 minutes. Deputy Ó Feargháil and Deputies Troy and Calleary will have ten minutes each. Deputy McConalogue will have speaking time after two other speakers.
Tá mé ag roinnt mo chuid ama leis na Teachtaí Robert Troy, Dara Calleary agus Charlie McConalogue.
Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil áthas orm deis a bheith agam páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht seo, díospóireacht atá tábhachtach agus muid ag druidim anois leis an chéad cháinaisnéis don Rialtas nua seo.
There have been some very positive contributions to the debate today and last evening. In adding my few words I wish to be positive. There is a large degree of consensus among all Deputies that we want to see the most vulnerable in Irish society protected. I wish the Minister, Deputy Burton, well because I believe she is committed to that exercise and this motion can help her in the very onerous challenge she faces at Cabinet in battling to secure the resources she will need to meet the needs of those on social welfare.
We in Fianna Fáil understandably point to the substantial increases in the social welfare budget over the decade when the financial allocation rose from €6.7 billion in 2000 to €20.9 billion in 2010. Increasing social welfare payments at a time of economic buoyancy is one thing, as we know, but protecting the progress made by the less well-off in society, at a time of financial crisis, is by far the greatest challenge. I, for my part, am satisfied that at a time of unprecedented difficulty for our country, the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government displayed a genuine commitment to those in need by bringing forward and implementing budgets that were progressive, ensuring that those who could pay most did so.
There is no denying, however, that the reductions in benefits borne already by families and individuals, has impacted adversely on the living standards of many. This is why the election promises of Fine Gael and the Labour Party attracted such support and it is why the vulnerable in society want to see the Government fulfil its promises by maintaining the headline welfare rates to which it committed itself in the programme for Government and which the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach reiterated on a number of occasions.
Few could deny that further sharp reductions in welfare spending, as well as causing severe hardship to individuals, would impact on domestic demand at a time when retail sales continue to fall. In its quarterly report, the troika agreed that a balance must be struck between the correction of the public finances and the need to grow demand in the domestic economy. With a 3.3% year on year drop in retail sales being recorded this September, we can see the precarious state of the economy and its vulnerability to a decline in the spending power of social welfare recipients who are most likely to spend a large proportion of their income in the local economy.
The previous Government made a decision to protect the incomes of elderly people dependent on the State pension. They were right to do so. In spite of this, 10% of older people live on incomes below the poverty line, many of them living alone, although some 44% of older couples live on incomes in the bottom 20% of the income distribution. Without the State pension 88% of our population aged over 65 would be living in absolute poverty. If the Government is to renege on its promise to welfare recipients, as it has on many of its election promises, I exhort the Minister not to abandon the needs of the elderly.
It is in this context that the issue of fuel poverty arises. At a time of rapidly rising energy prices and in the aftermath of a number of exceptionally bad winters, elderly people in particular live in terror of not being able to heat their homes. Those most at risk live alone, sometimes in poor-quality accommodation where there are low occupancy rates. They spend a disproportionately high percentage of their income on fuel costs. We have all heard anecdotal evidence of older people retiring to bed early on a winter's evening to save on fuel costs and keep themselves warm. Recent research by the University of Ulster on the rate of excess winter deaths makes shocking reading. The research found that between 1,500 and 2,000 excess winter deaths, namely, the number of additional deaths when compared to figures for other times of the year, occurred on the island of Ireland during the winter of 2009-10. It was further suggested that deaths from cold-related illnesses may be underestimated by as much as 25%. Budget 2011 recognised the vulnerability of people living in fuel poverty and budget 2012 needs to do likewise.
The past three Fianna Fáil-led Governments did much to address the issue of child poverty by significantly increasing child benefit and investing in preschool education in an initiative that should be mirrored in other areas because it effectively showed how the State can sometimes do more with less. We moved from a process of cash support for young children to the early childhood education programme where each child received the guaranteed benefit of a preschool intervention. The consistent child poverty rate, which had fallen from 11% in 2005, in tandem with benefit increases, is now reversed due to unemployment, reductions in family incomes and social welfare cuts. In 2009, almost 19% of children, namely, more than 200,000 children or one in every six children aged under 17, were considered to be at risk of poverty. No doubt the situation has deteriorated in the interim.
It is vitally important, therefore, to consider the scale of child poverty within the family context. As each of us sees in our constituency clinics, one-parent households are at a high risk of poverty. The most recent statistics available to me indicate that 30% of all those in such households, adults and children alike, are vulnerable. We need to work collectively and, in the period ahead, this Government must act responsively to ensure that the welfare system in all its manifestations operates to guarantee that children are supported and protected from poverty while their parents are assisted and encouraged to return to education or training, or to re-enter the workforce. I share the view expressed by Deputy John O'Mahony, who spoke of breaking the poverty cycles and focusing on this area.
In the run-up to each of the past four budgets, as a member of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, I exhorted the then Government to give priority to children at risk of poverty. I again ask the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, to convey to the Minister, Deputy Burton, the need to make certain that such children are given every possible assistance to reach their potential and, in so doing, break the cycle of poverty into which so many of them were born.
The Fianna Fáil motion before the House further calls on the Government not to reduce social welfare expenditure by stealth, and to maintain other social welfare benefits such as widows' pensions, disability pensions and illness benefits. If the Government is to honour its promise to maintain headline rates, pressure will no doubt come from the Department of Finance to radically reduce or eliminate other expenditure programmes within the remit of the Department of Social Protection. In the limited time available to me, I wish in that regard to mention the work of the family resource centres throughout the country. There is a manifest benefit in continuing to support these centres which are mostly located in areas of significant social need. I have seen at first hand the benefits experienced by families using the two existing family resource centres in my constituency, in Newbridge and the Curragh.
It would be remiss of me to conclude without referencing the current difficulties being experienced by many members of the public when seeking to avail of services from the Department of Social Protection. Inordinate delays are now being experienced by people applying for a variety of benefits. It now takes, on average, 17 weeks to process a one-parent family payment; family income supplement takes 17 weeks on average and the non-contributory pension 15 weeks. The carer's allowance, a particularly sensitive and important payment, takes 13 weeks. If all these issues are important, so too are the areas of appeal. A variety of figures are quoted to us, ranging from 19,000 outstanding appeals to approximately 37,000.
I am unsure what the accurate figure for appeals is, as they continue to clog up the system but one matter is clear. The staff working in the Department of Social Protection are doing a superb job. They work in very pressurised conditions and are unfailingly helpful and courteous to the public they serve. The Minister must divert resources from within her Department to these front-line areas to ensure that people in dire need have their applications processed expeditiously, and that where appeals arise, they are dealt with much more speedily. It takes 45.5 working days, on average, for an appeal for many of the benefits which are essential for people to keep body and soul together.
I believe this Minister intends to do well and that she is well-motivated. We on this side of the House wish to support her in ensuring that she and the Government honour the firm commitments they made to the people in the election and in the programme for Government. I commend the motion to the House.
I compliment my colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, for introducing this motion. My party has nothing to apologise for in so doing. Some people seem to think that because we got a significant beating in the recent election we should crawl under a stone or run away but we should not. We have a mandate. I have a mandate to be in this House representing the people who put me here, just as my 18 colleagues similarly received a mandate. It was diminished, as judged by previous elections, but we have a mandate. We were elected the main Opposition party and our job is to hold the Government to account. We should never fall back or renege from that.
I attended a public meeting recently where a man told me a government is only as good as its opposition. I question where——
Do not forget the past, then.
You must have been good, to leave us there for 14 years.
Enough said.
You must have been a terrible Opposition that day.
We received our mandate and the Government received its mandate.
You will make it easy for us in a few weeks' time.
The Government has a large mandate. It went to the country and made certain promises, in particular in regard to social welfare, the subject of our discussion today. Not only did the Government parties make promises in their pre-election manifestos, they made them in the programme for Government, renewing them when they were 100 days in office. Therefore, there can be no ambiguity. They cannot say they were not sure where they stood or how bad the finances were. The financial situation was well-known. I was not a Member of the previous Dáil but never before, in the history of the State, were Government books opened up so widely and freely to all Members of the Oireachtas who wished to look at them. People know exactly where they stand. I hope, therefore, the Government will renew the proposals it outlined. It is true that when we introduced a four-year plan in November of last year, we aimed to achieve savings of €2.8 billion in social welfare expenditure. It was envisaged that this would be done through a combination of control measures, labour activation and structural reforms. We hoped at that time that there would be no further reductions in the rates.
We have listened to Government Deputies saying all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. I question whether last year's cuts in carer's allowance, blind rate pension and widow's and widower's pensions were low-hanging fruit. Those decisions were very difficult. They rightly met with severe opposition at the time. No one wanted to be in a position to make such decisions, but they had to be made, unfortunately, in order to achieve the €6 billion in cuts that were needed last year. We are now on the road to recovery as a result of them.
Government Deputies are falling over themselves every day to welcome the acknowledgement and credit they are receiving from international markets and commentators. They claim it has resulted from the work they have done since they took office but that is not the case. It has resulted from a budget that was vehemently opposed in December of last year and has been fully implemented now. We support the budget parameters for next year but we may differ on how they can be achieved. I understand the Minister for Finance will outline the figures tomorrow. I look forward to Opposition Deputies having an opportunity to look through them to ensure we can propose credible alternatives to what the Government is planning. Perhaps we will be in a position to support what the Government is doing.
It has been suggested that we increased social welfare payments for electoral gain and benefit. I do not believe Deputies on this side of the House who were in Government before this year's election should make any apologies for increasing pension levels by 130%, unemployment benefits by 130% and child payments by 330%. At the time, Opposition Deputies said that such increases were miserly and that one could hardly buy a loaf of bread, a bale of briquettes or a bag of coal with the moneys in question. Those words were used. I went to a house two nights ago to meet a husband and wife aged 89 and 82. The man in question has been suffering from dementia for the last four years. His wife has been providing full-time care — 24 hours a day, seven days a week — to her husband during that time. By keeping him out of an institution, she has saved this Government tens of thousands of euro. She could do so because the previous Government introduced home help packages which were of major benefit to her.
Hear, hear.
She could do so because the previous Government increased the old age pension and introduced a half-rate carer's pay for such families. I was visiting them because unfortunately the man in question has gone so bad that his wife is no longer able to look after him. Rather than paying an extra €130 a week to that family, the Government will have to pay a minimum of €700 a week to keep the man in a State home.
We have been ridiculed in this debate for doing what we did. It was suggested that we did it for electoral gain. We did it because we have a strong social conscience. I am fed up attending this House to be spoken down to because I am a member of Fianna Fáil. It is as if we are something one might walk on in the street. Just like people in Fine Gael, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin, the Technical Group or the democratic left alliance or United Left Alliance, or whatever they like to call themselves, many of us in Fianna Fáil have strong social consciences. I do not see why we cannot bring this issue to the floor of the House to be debated. We were elected to articulate our views as we are doing today.
I would like to speak about the issues facing self-employed people who created jobs and paid PRSI, tax and VAT during the good times. In recent years, many of them have gone out of work and are finding it hard to get any sort of social assistance. Their problems must be addressed quickly. It should have been done previously. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue when the Minister said that being on social welfare is a lifestyle choice. That is not true in the vast majority of cases. I suggest that at least 300,000 of the 440,000 unemployed people in this country never received unemployment benefit until the last three or four years. They did not make a lifestyle choice to go from earning €500, €600 or €700 a week to earning €188 a week.
Why are they in that position?
I do not believe——
The economy is wrecked.
——anybody made that choice.
Who made the choice? The previous Government made it for them.
Can I also say——
Nobody makes that choice.
Deputy Cowen is right. Nobody would have made it until it was made for them.
The Deputy should have a bit of respect.
We must ensure we do everything in our power to get people back to work. That is the only way we will maintain the social welfare budget at a low level. We need to do everything in our power to get people back to work.
I wish the Government well in its endeavours. I have always said that Fianna Fáil will be constructive in opposition. We will support those who need to be supported. I will not make any further apologies for being democratically elected by the people of Longford-Westmeath. As long as I am here, I will hold the Government to account as an Opposition Deputy, which is what I was elected to do. I make no apologies for that.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Cowen, for giving us a chance to discuss social welfare in advance of the budget. I would like to pick up on what Deputy Ó Fearghaíl said about the staff of the Department of Social Protection around the country. They are performing an admirable job under huge pressure, particularly those who man the Oireachtas inquiry lines. Other Departments could study how the Oireachtas inquiry lines in the Department of Social Protection work in terms of providing information and assistance. The Department's staff throughout the country are doing a superb job.
Deputy Ó Fearghaíl briefly mentioned the situation with regard to social welfare appeals. All of us deal with social welfare appeals in our constituency offices. When I checked in my own office this morning, I found that the average delay on an appeal at the moment is between 12 and 14 months. Nobody in here should accept or be happy with that. If such a waiting list existed in a hospital or for a grant payment for something else, there would be a hullabaloo over it and task forces would be established. Surely it is within our ability in this House to come up with some sort of system whereby experienced civil servants from various Departments can be brought in to tackle this backlog. We fully accept that people with experience are needed to process appeals but it is not rocket science to assess eligibility or conditions.
I often think that many of those on social welfare are best placed to do this work themselves. Those who may be entitled to a payment, perhaps in the circumstances described by Deputy Troy, cannot be expected to wait for 14 months to have their appeals assessed properly. I appeal to the Minister to examine the possibility of establishing a specific initiative without incurring extra costs, for example, by bringing in people from other Departments, to tackle this problem. Perhaps it can be tackled on a geographical basis.
Over the past two days, Deputy Troy and many other speakers have referred to the position of the self-employed. People whose businesses have collapsed through no fault of their own often come to our constituency offices to tell us how incredibly frustrating it is to have employed dozens of people and paid tax and PRSI and everything else, only to find that their former employees are in full receipt of social welfare whereas they cannot get any social welfare.
ISME has provided information on the distinction that is made between employees and the self-employed. It shows that unlike an employee who has an immediate entitlement to benefits depending on the waiting list to which Deputy Ó Fearghaíl referred, the self-employed do not have any immediate entitlements. They are means tested, their savings and income, including that of co-habitees, are fully assessed, as is the value of property other than the family home, and they are not covered for invalidity or disability. The difficulty associated with assessing property values is that despite many properties being no longer worth anything to their owners, they have attached to them a nominal amount which precludes the owner from receiving a proper and fair payment. I ask the Minister to consider specifically the introduction of a provision to give the self-employed, who are wealth and employment creators, a proper and fair chance. If she does so, she will do the country some service.
A number of speakers referred to the provision in the so-called jobs initiative to reduce employer PRSI. Having contacted the Department of Social Protection on the issue, I note that a catch applies in this regard. The community services programme, CSP, does phenomenal work, from providing meals on wheels services to caring for older people and promoting tourism. However, it is not allowed to transfer savings it secures as a result of the reduction in PRSI into its administration budgets, which are being cut to reflect savings. If we are serious about the services provided by the community services programme, we should offer it every possible support. As Deputy Troy stated, the CSP saves the State substantial amounts of money.
Deputy Ó Fearghaíl referred to the work done by family resource centres. I fail to understand the reason the Government transferred responsibility for the centres from the Department of Social Protection to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I am concerned about the allocation of their budgets and the standing they enjoy now that they appear to be boxed into the latter Department. Given that they do much more than deal with children, we should be wary about transferring them to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I ask the Minister to respond.
Given the significant work done by the previous Government to address fraud, it is a little rich for the Minister to trot into the House or state in the media that she is the queen of anti-fraud measures. She needs to address a number of specific areas. Some people from across the Border are using addresses in this State or various programmes to gain access to payments which are higher in this part of the island than in the other part of it. Various task forces were established in recent years — the former Ministers, Deputy Ó Cuív and Mary Hanafin, were particularly strong in this regard — involving the Garda Síochána, Revenue Commissioners and other bodies to tackle this aspect of social welfare fraud. The measures taken had a direct impact in some Border counties. These measures must continue to be enforced to ensure that those who claim benefits across the country are fully entitled to them. We must also be careful not to overstate the problem as the data available indicate that so-called false claims are not higher in Ireland than in most other European countries. For this reason, we must be wary of presenting welfare fraud as a major problem. Public representatives know that some of those who come to our offices are not entitled to social welfare benefits. Perhaps we must collectively decide to tell such people that they do not have an entitlement and refuse to deal with their case.
The Minister indicated she is seeking reductions from the ESB in respect of the fuel allowance. Thus far, she has managed to get away with cutting the fuel allowance because the cuts have not kicked in on ESB bills. Given some of the Minister's previous utterances in the House about these allowances, it is extraordinary that she has chosen to reduce them. As we move into the winter months when most people switch on their heating systems, I believe this issue will come back and bite the Government. The cut in the allowances may have been small but it was heartless given the type of people who will be most affected.
I wish the Minister well and hope she shows the same determination and vigour she has shown in pursuing the ESB when she pursues RTE to secure a reduction in the cost of television licences for people on social welfare. It is ridiculous that RTE has not agreed to reduce the television licence for those on social welfare. Various well paid RTE presenters are the first to lecture Members of the House and people in every other part of the economy about cutting expenditure. It is ridiculous, and in this respect I am being critical of former Ministers from my party, that this issue is only now being addressed. RTE must cut its cloth to reflect the current economic conditions. Rather than cutting the payments of pensioners and others with an entitlement to social welfare benefits, the Minister would be better engaged reducing incomes in RTE.
The coverage of social welfare is frequently reduced to soundbites and slogans targeted at particular audiences, depending on the speaker's particular political view. We have heard references to "deadbeat dads" and "scroungers" and arguments that people have been put on the bread line as a result of cuts in social welfare. When the Government was being formed I was struck by the fact that the Department of Social Protection, which has responsibility for one third of expenditure, was viewed as a junior Department. Irrespective of who was appointed Minister and the circumstances surrounding that appointment, the Department, as one of the most important Ministries in expenditure terms, should be the lead Department in breaking the cycle of poverty. It should lead the Departments of Education and Skills and Health in selling the message that social welfare is a temporary option for most people and send out a message to the children born into families who are on social welfare that they need not be on social welfare. It should also press the Department of Education and Skills to develop new programmes and revise existing programmes such as DEIS to make them more focused on the people who need them. The media attention given to the Department of Social Protection needs to reflect its importance in government and, more important, the lead role it and the Minister can play, should they so choose, in rebuilding society.
This is a crucial debate. It is a privilege for any democracy to have a social welfare system. At this difficult time, we must look after those who need social welfare most.
I spoke briefly with the Minister and sincerely hope she is able to address the entire social welfare system. I am privileged to be involved in food, horticulture and forestry. I hope my contribution does not come across as racist. Having visited many factories and yards, I find it incredible that people are much better off not working than working. Last week, I discussed the price of vegetables with representatives of one of the main stores. They informed me that when the company opened a new store in north County Dublin only 63 people applied for 70 jobs. Also in north County Dublin, 70 jobs paying up to €30,000 per annum became available in the spring but only three Irish people applied for them. The other 67 positions were filled by people who moved here from Poland. I visited a meat factory in the midlands with 20 vacancies. Of the three Irish people who started work, all left after the first day whereas the 17 Brazilians who were recruited remained. At a function I attended the other night for a fine gentleman, Fintan Ginnity, the former chairman of the Meath county board, I was seated beside a lady who informed me that her company failed to find recruits for three full-time jobs. I also visited three other factories, one of which employs 327 people, of whom 305 are not from Ireland. These are incredible figures. People from other countries are coming here to take jobs in a number of sectors. We need to reskill people if we are to expand the agricultural sector in the next five years. We must train and encourage people to take jobs in processing, factories and so forth.
Deputy Troy spoke passionately about social welfare. All of us deal with the same type of people and we must ensure they are protected. Since 1 January, some 50,000 people have come into the country and acquired PPS numbers. Since 2007, some 555,000 people have come here and acquired PPS numbers. These are the facts.
I welcome this opportunity to conclude the debate on this motion. The Government is determined to restore our national sovereignty. We want to be financially independent and to pay our own way. As the Minister has detailed, Government spending in 2011 will be roughly €18 billion more than this year's overall Government income. The Government will get €42 billion from tax and PRSI this year, €20 billion of which will be spent by the Department of Social Protection. Despite severe constraints, the Government is determined to do its utmost to protect the most vulnerable people in Irish society. We also recognise that the people who turn to the Department for protection generally had no role in causing the economic crisis. They must, therefore, be shielded from the worst of its consequences. There are considerable challenges ahead, including the need to safeguard, as far as possible, the key income supports and services operated by the Department.
A number of Deputies raised the issues of the fuel allowance and household benefits schemes during last evening's session. Difficult decisions had to be made in respect of these schemes in light of commitments made by the previous Government. A number of measures for savings in 2011 and future years were specified as part of budget 2011, but were not announced by the Government at the time. These included a saving of €30 million in the energy and telephone elements of the household benefits package in 2011 and subsequent years, but the specific way in which the saving was to be made was not specified. They also included the abolition of the smokeless fuel allowance, with a saving of €7.7 million in 2011 and €17.5 million in subsequent years. The number of free units provided under the electricity and gas allowance was reduced from 2,400 to 1,800, with a view to generating savings of €17 million in 2011 and €65 million annually. In 2010, approximately €367 million was spent on the household benefits package. It is expected that up to €371 million will be spent by the end of this year, even when the changes mentioned have been taken into account.
The key element of our transformation from a passive system of income support to a more proactive model is the establishment of the new national employment and entitlements service. The service will merge FÁS employment and community employment programmes as well as the community welfare service into the Department of Social Protection. The idea is to create an integrated service providing a one-stop shop for people seeking to establish their benefit entitlements, looking for a job and seeking advice on their training options. FÁS and the Department of Social Protection are already working on a number of pilot projects to identify those who are most at risk of falling into long-term unemployment and the provision of appropriately tailored responses to their needs. These will be rolled out nationwide next year as part of the national employment and entitlements service. This new service will offer users a high level of personalised employment support. It will give special attention to those on the live register most at risk of long-term unemployment through proactive approaches and modern case management systems.
As the Minister has already said, the formulation of budget 2012 presents considerable challenges. The budgetary process will be informed by the comprehensive review of expenditure which has been completed by the Department. This Government will always endeavour to do its utmost to look after the most vulnerable people in our society and to ensure that measures introduced are fair and equitable, while continuing to take the necessary steps to put the country back on the road to economic growth and stability. I commend the amendment to the House.
I compliment my colleague Deputy Barry Cowen on putting forward this constructive and important motion. As Deputy McEntee said, this is an important issue.
I wish to refer to the comment made by my colleague, Deputy Dara Calleary, with regard to the exorbitant licence fees paid to RTÉ on behalf of taxpayers. There is plenty of room to reduce that subsidy to an organisation where outrageous salary levels still prevail, particularly at presenter level. There is room for dramatic improvement in that organisation.
I am quite a number of years in this House and I appreciate it is not always possible for the relevant Minister to attend. However, it has always been the tradition that an official or senior person from each Department would attend and listen to the debate and bring any urgent issues to the attention of the Minister. The current Government talks about making the Oireachtas and the Legislature more important, yet we are being totally disregarded. We know the debate will be printed by tomorrow, but that is not the point. Officials should be present, particularly when the Minister is unable to attend. This is no reflection on the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy McEntee. If the Minister, Deputy Burton, cannot be here — I am sure she has a good reason for her absence — some of her officials should be present to listen to the debate.
My colleague mentioned the huge improvements during the period when Fianna Fáil led the Government. We improved the living standards of people depending on social welfare. There were huge improvements in the rates of payment to people in receipt of social welfare payments, huge improvements in the household package and in the criteria for availing of carer's allowance. All of those benefits put in place benefited hundreds of thousands of people. It was disingenuous for the Minister, on her trip to Donegal, to talk about those improvements being put in place for electoral gain. This was particularly disingenuous considering the many comments she made when she was on this side of the House. Budget after budget, she complained the increases were not substantial enough. In recent years, the ESRI conducted examinations of tax and social welfare measures taken in our budgets and their examinations confirmed on all occasions that those budgets were progressive.
The Minister has been praised recently for saying she had an "army" of inspectors in place to tackle fraud. I am sure she did not mean "army" in the traditional way. Thankfully, we have got rid of paramilitary groups here, and we want to see their remnants disbanded also. With regard to fraud, the Minister is just continuing the good work that was initiated a number of years ago. The Department has been carrying out a successful anti-fraud programme. We want to see that being even more successful. Considerable sums of money have been saved each year from tackling fraud, almost €500 annually over the past number of years. We hope that will be achieved again this year. There are approximately 600 staff in the Department involved in that work.
We all know about the huge pressure on individual social welfare officials, but within our overall public administration there is scope to transfer more people to pressure areas within the Department of Social Protection. The Minister of State will be aware that when I was Minister in his Department, there was a large transfer of personnel from the Department to the Department of Social Protection. There is still scope within the broader public service to transfer people to areas with a heavy burden. Some months ago, when the Minister, Deputy Burton, introduced the Social Welfare Bill, I spoke about the multi-agency checkpoints along the Border, where extra powers were given to the personnel in the statutory agencies involved in those checkpoints. I welcomed that. I represent two of the southern Ulster counties in this Dáil and my colleague, Deputy Kirk, represents Louth, another Border county. We have seen at first hand fraudulent behaviour by people crossing the Border and welcome anything that will eliminate that and ensure that our people on the southern side of the Border in Ulster can compete on a level playing field in regard to contracts, building work and construction work, etc. I commend the Department and all the agencies involved in ensuring that fraud is eliminated and minimised as much as possible.
I commend my colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, our spokesperson on social welfare, on bringing forward this opportune Private Members' motion on the importance of protecting our social welfare payments and of holding the Government to account in terms of ensuring the people who are most vulnerable in these difficult financial times are protected as far as is possible in the upcoming budget.
We bring forward this motion on the back of what has always been a very strong ethos in the Fianna Fáil Party of social solidarity and a very strong social conscience. That goes back to the foundation of our party, right through all those times we were in government. Many of the initiatives introduced over the years were the foundation stone of our party's success. Our party has certainly not lost that social conscience, nor the understanding that it is the job of a party in government to ensure that everybody is looked after, including those who are vulnerable and those who need a leg up when they hit hardship, while ensuring that those who are able and in a position to work do their bit and contribute in a manner that makes sure nobody is left behind. Fianna Fáil's record in government over the last few years would demonstrate these traits. Pension levels were increased by 130%, unemployment benefits increased by 130% and child benefits increased by 330%.
The importance of this is highlighted by the fact that every week, about 1.4 million people receive a social welfare payment of some description. That is absolutely critical to many of those families. We are talking about pensioners, people who are currently unemployed, or people who are carers, as Deputy Troy outlined earlier. All of these people depend on such payments, and by carrying out their work, carers save the State much more money. We spend 20% of our GNP on social welfare payments, whereas that figure is 24% in France and 22% in Germany. We are certainly not out of kilter with the EU in this respect.
I know the Government has a very difficult challenge ahead, due to the financial constraints in which we find ourselves. It has very difficult decisions to make in this budget, as the last Government did in a series of budgets when €20 billion was taken out of the national finances. We in opposition will be highlighting the importance of protecting the vulnerable, but we will also hold the Government to account for the promises it made not so long ago. We will point out the damage and hardship caused by cuts made not just to those on social welfare, but across the board. We will point that out, as the parties opposite did in the last Dáil. They also made promises a few months ago, in the full knowledge of the national finances, as to what they would do when they got into government, and they asked for a mandate on that basis. As well as pointing out the hardship caused by the Government's cuts, we will also be holding it to account for every promise it made over nine months ago.
I commend this motion to the House. I thank the House and the Acting Chairman for their co-operation, and I urge Members to support the motion.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 36.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Nulty, Patrick.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Spring, Arthur
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Níl
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McEntee, Shane
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Nulty, Patrick.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Níl
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
Question declared carried.