I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs back to the House.
Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill 2009: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Senator McFadden has indicated that she opposes this section.
I welcome the Minister back to the House and thank her for being here.
This section refers to jobseeker's benefit, carer's benefit and disabled people's benefits, all of which are being cut by 4.1%. The Minister has said people are still benefiting from increases in social welfare, but I dispute this. The people I have met have told me that they are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. I spoke about carers, in particular, yesterday. They are the only recipients of a benefit who work for it and stand to lose €8.80 a week. That is a large amount of money to lose, having regard to the many hours of care they provide for their loved ones, saving the State a great deal of money in the process.
I will not rehash everything that was said yesterday, but I cannot possibly agree to this section. I appreciate the Minister is trying to do her best to save money and that matters have been difficult, as she has explained. Some of the statements on this issue by groups involved in the disability sector are heart-rending. Inclusion Ireland has spoken about the rhetoric used. The people who will lose their disability allowance will also lose optical benefits, dental benefits and child benefit and have to pay prescription charges. This is the most vulnerable sector. Is the national disability strategy just paying lip service to it? Is it genuine or merely aspirational, if the Government can hit a vulnerable minority group such as this in such a way? I do not believe the provision is about protecting them. I am dismayed by this and the provision affecting carers.
This section also deals with jobseeker's allowance. It has been said this is an emigration budget for 20 and 21 year olds, given that their rate of benefit is being cut by 50%. The Minister has allocated €48 million to FÁS to fund short courses. Given that this organisation has fallen into such disrepute, I wonder if that allocation is wise. I abhor the cuts to the Youthreach programme and schemes such as the vocational training opportunities scheme. Student grants are also being cut. The small print of the budget is shocking. I am, therefore, utterly opposed to this section.
I support Senator McFadden's points and welcome the Minister back to the House.
I wish to deal with the impact of subsection (2)(a) which deals with the cut in jobseeker’s benefit which will affect young people, in particular. It will have an enormous impact on young people. By reducing the payment to €100 for the younger group and €150 for the slightly older group, one is telling them to live at home or emigrate. They are the only choices. One could not possibly rent accommodation, buy food, pay for other expenses and live independently of one’s family with an income of €100. Many young people are graduates and that is a grim prospect for them.
I have great difficulty with emigration. I am sad to think that we could lose a generation of young people. A recent statement revealed that 84,000 young people under 25 are on the dole. All of them will suffer the impact of the cuts. One third of men under the age of 25 are signing on, which is a massive amount. Many parents would find it difficult for their now adult children to move back home and young people would find it difficult also as it would rob them of their dignity and independence. Now they have to look forward to the boat or the aeroplane. I am sad because we could have a missing generation again in this country. My eldest child is 15. In five, six or ten years time I would not like that to be the prospect for him. I say to the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, that parents do not educate their children to emigrate. They educate them so they can live and work in their home country. Thank God we have not seen emigration for many years.
However, we seem to be faced with a brain drain, which makes no sense. Government policy is not tying up. On the one hand the Minister is saying she wants to build a knowledge and innovation economy. We know from all the studies, including the programme of international student assessment, PISA, that we must produce high quality graduates to build that knowledge and innovation economy. If that is the case, why does the Minister not want to keep young people in this country? Young people want to work. They are in a difficult situation because the Minister did not provide any opportunities for them. There are no internships, community employment schemes or apprenticeships.
The Minister has also affected disadvantaged students by cutting VTOS and Youthreach. She might be aware that the Oireachtas is conducting a study on early school leaving and under-achievement. What we have found in that study is that students in Youthreach find it far preferable to second level because mainstream second level was not flexible enough for them and did not suit them. It is amazing how teachers and instructors work with students in Youthreach programmes. Students can wander around and come in during the teacher's lunch break and talk to teachers. That type of flexibility is needed to enable Travellers or people from backgrounds with very little home support to stay at school. We must keep people at school for as long possible so they will get the highest possible qualification to enable them to compete for places.
I oppose the cuts in social welfare for young people principally because I wish them to be able to stay in this country. I also wish them to be able to learn to live independently. I am not talking about making them dependent on social welfare. I would be supportive of any requirements whereby after six months social welfare payments would be reduced if recipients did not make an effort to get a training place or a job. I am supportive of Fine Gael's proposal in that regard.
I spoke extensively yesterday evening on carer's benefit. As my colleague, Senator McFadden, indicated, carers work for their benefit. In many cases carers are on call 24 hours a day. They are prisoners of their loved ones, but they choose that option. Cutting their payments by €8.80 per week is particularly cruel. It is a cruel cut because much of the time the carer is invisible. Carers are generally at home. No one recognises them. Much of the time, what they do is not recognised as work although we know it is real work that requires incredible dedication.
I also deplore the cuts to payments for disabled people. All of the research shows that disabled people are most at risk of poverty, even in good times. During the Celtic tiger years, among the people who came to my office was a deaf girl. She was very skilled but even three years ago she found it impossible to get a job. Her benefit has now been cut. I condemn the cuts to the vulnerable and carers. In particular I condemn the cuts that affect young people who were not provided with alternatives.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hanafin. I apologise as I was unable to attend yesterday's Second Stage debate.
My colleagues have given an overview of our political approach to the legislation. I am the first to acknowledge the scale of the difficulty the Minister faces in trying to put a social welfare budget together. We would be removing ourselves from reality if we did not acknowledge that even in its reduced state, the social welfare and social assistance programme is very good by international standards, especially when we compare it to the system in operation on the other side of the Border and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Each time I consider the various benefits and allowances it strikes me that we could rationalise the number of allowances and benefits as the social welfare system is cumbersome, administratively difficult and confusing. Generally speaking, we are talking about the same level of payments but we have a plethora of options and forms. Let us consider, for example, the reduction in the payment for disabled persons. Constituents who have had accidents at work seek advice on the invalidity pension. When I ask them whether they have applied for disability benefit they do not have any idea what I am talking about. The disability allowance is a valid and valuable payment but it appears to be off the radar as far as most people are concerned. We need to ensure that all people signing on for invalidity or disability benefit are made aware of the existence of the disability allowance, if it would apply in their circumstances.
Senator Healy Eames made the interesting comment that parents do not rear their children to emigrate, with which I very much agree. Neither do parents rear their children to become long-term recipients of social welfare benefits. That would not be the aim or ambition of Irish parents but, sadly, sometimes it transpires to be the reality. In all our social welfare and social assistance schemes, particularly from the jobseeker's perspective and that of young people — this proposed cut will affect young people — we must try to change the balance in the system to ensure there is a strong incentive in the system for people to go to work and to avail of the possibility to obtain training and participate in courses. I am sorry for not having the full details but I received a query at the weekend from a school principal who was unable to get clarification post-budget in regard to the number of extra training places, whether VTOS or otherwise, which the Department of Education and Science said would be available and which the Department of Social and Family Affairs said would not be, or vice versa. Will there be additional training options?
It is fine to reduce jobseeker's payments for young people leaving school but we must give them a training or education option. That is the key to whatever reforms the Minister must bring about. When a young person leaves school, whether at 16, 18 or 21 years of age, the natural extension for those who cannot get a conventional job should not be the old-fashioned social welfare scheme but training, education or alternative options.
The Minister is forced by budgetary constraints to make these reductions. We do not like them; nobody could. Politically, the equation is not balanced in that the training options have not been clearly outlined. Rather than the Minister speaking to her constituents or Members speaking to theirs and giving them the bad news that if they are unemployed on leaving school, their social welfare will be significantly reduced, we really need to be able to paint a clear picture for those young people as to the alternatives. Surely, it is always best for young people to be in training, in education or doing appropriate courses to suit their skills, talents etc.
Every time of economic difficulty brings challenges but it also brings opportunities. There is an acceptance among people that we are where we are economically, although that phrase is out of date, and that the well has run dry. The remaining resources must be spent in a very pro-education and pro-work experience way.
I first became involved in politics in the mid-1980s, as did the Minister, when the country faced grave economic difficulties. Governments then were at the disadvantage that there was not the same public understanding or acceptance. In the mid-1980s, mainly during the Garret FitzGerald Government but probably following on into the late Charles Haughey Governments, there were a number of novel employment, subsidy and training schemes, including youth employment schemes. Agencies, such as FÁS, introduced social employment schemes. Even with limited money, there was a little thinking outside the box and we saw that somewhere between a full-time job and full-time social welfare, there was a middle way, or a third way.
The Minister must concentrate on that in the next six months to give people a reason to be optimistic and to have some degree of hope. We must be able say to young people that they definitely will have a job in Ireland in the near future. We should be able to offer training and education at a limited additional net cost. There is nothing as wasteful as consigning a person to the social welfare system and closing the door on them. For a number of decades we saw where people became unemployed at 16, 17 or 18 years of age, entered that awful world of long-term unemployment and remained there.
The Minister has a responsibility to ensure a sufficient number of schemes, programmes and options are in place. Will she ask her officials, even though I am sure they will not thank her for advertising schemes which will add to the burden of the State's finances? A significant number of people who are entitled to the disablement gratuity are not in receipt of it because they seem unaware of that scheme's existence.
The Minister must aim high in regard to the use of the money available to her. As she served previously in the Department of Education and Science, she knows the schemes and options available there. It is time to twin the two Departments from a training point of view. There are so many third level and post-leaving certificate options that it is a shame that people at 17, 18 and 19 years of age are deciding to sign on for jobseeker's assistance. We should be able to offer them training courses, work experience, community employment, etc. We are going well outside the remit of the section.
I welcome the Minister. I say as an educator that she brought reforming zeal to the Department of Education and Science, some of which I agreed with. The Minister also brought great energy to that Department and like Senator Bradford, I looked forward to that when she became Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I do not say this in a patronising way but I thought she would reform social welfare. However, she has dismantled it.
I understand the Minister has limited money and that there are issues around her having to defend her budgetary position and Department in Cabinet. Her Department is supposed to be about assisting people. Senator Bradford just spoke about hope but people on social welfare have no hope whatsoever. They feel betrayed and let down.
We are on section 3.
I understand that. That is what I am referring to in the context of absolute poverty and relative poverty.
On Committee Stage in the other House and since becoming Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the Minister has made a virtue of protecting the most vulnerable. In this section, she is putting pressure on parents and children and is forcing people into making difficult choices in regard to emigration.
The Minister spoke about deflation on Second Stage. The carbon tax will increase the cost of fuel to people on social welfare and other income earners. The Minister needs to revisit this matter.
As the Government replaced the Combat Poverty Agency, we have no independent measure of poverty, unless one talks to CORI, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or Age Action Ireland in regard issues around the elderly. The calls to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul have gone through the roof. Where lies the national anti-poverty strategy? Is it in tatters? Is there no commitment to it?
The Minister did not speak about incentives. There is no vision or hope in this Bill for anybody on social welfare. We are cutting social welfare payments. Last year the over 65s and over 70s rightly pummelled the Government. This year the Government was afraid to act because it saw what happened last year, even though it can have all the spin doctors in the world. It was right to protect the elderly because one must always respect one's elders even though it failed in that duty last year.
If we pass this Bill, the Minister and her Department will have to deal with a new form of poverty and a new group of people. Will the legacy of this Government be a new generation immersed in poverty with no hope and no future?
I thank Senators for their contributions. There is no doubt we all appreciate the difficulties people with disabilities must endure in carrying on with their lives, the contribution carers make in looking after their loved ones and the difficulties people who have lost their jobs face. It is no solace to people on social welfare to make economic arguments. However, if we had not made the necessary cuts to social welfare, public pay and services, we would not have the money we need to pay social welfare in future years. It is really about short-term pain, and I acknowledge that people will suffer a loss of approximately €8.30 per week as a result of this. It is part of an effort to get the finances of the country back in order and stabilise that position.
It is true that prices have gone back to 2007 levels but social welfare rates are €10 above 2007 levels. It is not as if people have been cut off or removed from the system. I know it is a cut but it should be seen from the perspective that the euro can go further, there is greater buying power and we gave increases of 140%, 150% or more over recent years.
With regard to specific issues, Senator McFadden said that people with a disability allowance would lose child benefit. They will not because the compensation package for child benefit will ensure such people will get the benefit and will be protected. It is very important that anybody dependent on social welfare or family income supplement would not suffer a double cut. These people will be protected. The Senator also mentioned that the people would lose the optical and dental benefits but they will not because they qualify for those under the medical card scheme. The workers get it under the treatment benefit process.
That is for the people who have medical cards.
A person drawing a disability allowance is very likely to have a medical card.
Not always.
They might lose it now.
They are more likely than anybody else. The people will not be caught by that cut either. There is no doubt that the disregards, additional benefits and supports for carers have been increased significantly over recent years. A couple with two children earning €60,000 can still get the carer's allowance as the income disregards are very generous. A carer gets free travel and household benefits such as free fuel, irrespective of whether he or she lives with the person for whom he or she is caring.
I met representatives of the Carers Association and read all the submissions. Senators have also met the group. They highlighted two items in particular. They did not want the half rate carer's allowance to be taken away and they did not want the respite care grant to be taken away. There would have been less of an outcry about reducing a grant than there would have been about reducing the rate, as that is a sensitive action. Had we reduced the grant, we would have ended up taking more money from more people, which would not have been fair. The respite care grant is the only payment received by people who give full-time care and attention but do not qualify for a carer's allowance.
It was a balancing act and we were asked specifically not to touch these two items, and we did not. That shows we have made the effort, as far as possible, to support carers and to expand significantly the range of support and services available for them.
If we had not made the cuts in social welfare, they would have had to come from some other sector of Government expenditure. As we are taking some from public sector pay, the only remaining area was services. The services to persons with a disability or carers have not been cut.
They have.
There has been an increase. An extra €10 million has gone into home care packages announced in the budget. Many people with disabilities have said it would have been worse to take away services than the payment, no matter how difficult that is. With regard to young workers, the best way of reducing the social welfare budget is to get people back to work.
Agreed.
That is our priority. In this budget we have announced a capital programme which, proportionately, is the largest in Europe at €6.5 billion. That ensures that 60,000 to 70,000 are to be kept in the construction industry working on schools, infrastructure, environmental projects etc.
The Government has cut the capital programme in education.
The Minister to continue, without interruption.
It is the largest, proportionately, in Europe and as we are getting better value, we will get the same number of projects.
There is no plan.
There will be 60,000 to 70,000 people employed in that area. There is a new retrofitting programme which will see people employed in that area and there will be direct funding for the tourism industry, especially with local attractions. Attracting tourists is one of our major industries. There is direct support for the food industry, the employment subsidy scheme and, within my own Department, there is a PRSI exemption for employers who take people on in new jobs who are coming off the live register. That will come into effect from 1 January onwards and be dealt with in the next social welfare Bill. These are real incentives. Apprentices were also mentioned.
There are not many graduate opportunities.
I am not finished yet. If people doing apprenticeships are not able to get work, they will be able to do off-the-job training and FÁS is working with all apprentices to facilitate that. We have changed the criteria in the work and graduate placement scheme to make it easier for employers and graduates to participate. When it was first launched there was not much take-up because a small employer may not have employed ten people or more. We have made changes and from 1 December it has been a much more flexible scheme and looks to encourage young people, particularly graduates, to take placements that will allow them to do something while on the live register. They will be able to hold on to their payment and in many cases it will give them the valuable experience to be able to use their qualifications.
There is no take-up from employers.
We are moving away from the section. We are on section 3 and we should stick to it. The Minister to continue, without interruption.
Well spoken.
With regard to employment opportunities, there has been an increase in places available through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Education and Science. Significantly, a €20 million activation fund has also been established which will be available to the private and public sectors, enabling people to come forward with ideas on training and courses immediately.
People have said that young people will emigrate. If somebody who is 18 or 19 emigrates with no training or skills, he or she will end up looking for social welfare in another country. They will get £50. We are not telling young people to emigrate. Their choice is €100 or education and training, which will allow the full rate.
They might get a job.
There is a really strong message that we should be sending to young people in December and January. The CAO applications for the third level colleges and post-leaving certificate courses go in at the end of January. If these young people have to make a choice, they must go for education. The same people who would qualify for social welfare such as jobseeker's assistance, by virtue of living at home with a social welfare family, are also the people who would qualify for a third level grant and, most likely, a top-up grant. They would get their education at the same time.
A person who is 18 or 19 and gets a job has no skills and does not have any formal education and training. They were able to get jobs when there was almost full employment but they are destined to be the people who are long-term unemployed. The same is true for those who are 20 or 21.
There are many educationalists in the room today. We all know the importance of these people having an education, staying in school for as long as possible and going on with further education to gain skills and training. The only difference is that Fine Gael proposals would provide a disincentive to taking up a course. We will incentivise people to take up such courses. We are all working from the same perspective. We have recognised that for many of these young people, there must be a financial incentive to continue the education. That choice is available to them and there is a strong message. As the process has worked with those who are 18 and 19, we believe it can work with those who are 20 or 21 also.
Senator Buttimer had a specific question on the carbon tax and the national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS. The carbon tax for coal and peat will come into effect in September and there will be an alleviating measure to ensure fuel poverty does not arise.
We already have fuel poverty.
The Minister to continue, without interruption.
The fuel allowance increased last year, as the amount and number of weeks in the scheme were increased. The price of fuel came down. It remains intact in this budget.
We are still on target with NAPS. Despite the cuts in this budget, the average industrial wage has come down as well. It must be the case that there is no great incentive to be on social welfare as opposed to working. The replacement rates had to be looked at in this context as well. For some time a married couple, or a couple with a child, were better off on the dole than working, which is wrong and cannot continue.
It is with all these issues in mind that we have come forward with these particular cuts. None of them is easy but it is about ensuring we make the required savings without penalising too heavily and taking into account the fact that prices have fallen and that we have given substantial increases over recent years. As far as possible we have tried to maintain the priority issues that were highlighted by groups such as carers.
The Minister referred to the enhancement of budgets and so on. I will outline a simple scenario created by her Department and the Department of Health and Children. Public servants will have their pay cut in addition to being subject to a recruitment freeze, which will have a knock on effect on the provision of services by these Departments. A carer, a person with a disability or someone in need of respite care, physiotherapy and so on will suffer a reduction in service. It is wrong and disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The bottom line is services will not be enhanced by these cutbacks.
The Minister is also incorrect that the Carers Association is happy with only a cut in the carer's allowance. I met carers who were unhappy last weekend and during my Second Stage contribution, I read into the record e-mails I received from carers. The Government has taken a minimum of €8 a week off people who are saving the State a fortune. It is about time this was put in perspective. We are dealing with people and human tragedy will be caused by this budget. There is collective responsibility around the Cabinet table. The Minister referred on Second Stage and on Committee Stage to protecting the vulnerable. She can push all the spin she wants. For example, she issued a document following the budget in which she boasted about the amount she has spent in the Department.
The Government is cutting payments to the poor, the disabled and the most vulnerable in our society. In 1987 the slogan was cuts hurt the old, the poor and the handicapped. That has not changed in 2009 and, with all due respect to the Minister, she can give us spin and huff and puff but the Government is taking money. Would any of us live on €196 a week? That is the amount people will be forced to live on as a consequence of this Bill. I am sorry Senator Brady is present because he is a decent guy but I appeal to every Fianna Fáil Senator to have the moral courage and moral fibre to go through the lobby and vote "Níl". The Minister has many spin doctors but people in her constituency and mine are under pressure. Tá siad faoi bhrú. It is fine for me to take a pay cut but a social welfare recipient needs assistance from the State. This is about social assistance. I agree with the Minister's comments on getting people out of poverty and eliminating people's dependence on social welfare but this Bill will increase poverty. Her explanation drives another wedge through our society.
The Minister's comment on the half-rate carer's allowance gives the impression carers have welcomed the cut to the carer's allowance but that is not the case, as Senator Buttimer said. I was contacted by many carers prior to the budget asking for representations to be made on their behalf to ensure the rate would not be cut. It should not be forgotten that they also lost their Christmas bonus. In addition, they must pay €2.40 more for a bag of coal, 50 cent more for a bale of briquettes and a new fee of 50 cent per prescribed medicine. The elderly will not be entitled to free glasses any more because of the way the optical benefits will be configured. For someone on disability allowance, €196 a week is a small amount. Social Inclusion Ireland slammed these cuts and the Minister should not think to the contrary. The organisation has not applauded the Minister and the Government for the cuts.
I refer to young people and the graduate scheme mentioned by the Minister. I welcome this scheme because we are in danger of losing a large number of young people. They do not wish to be hanging around and opportunities must be created for them to gain experience or their valuable third level education will die on them. They need to activate their education quickly. What types of employer are being asked to participate in the scheme? What is the employer take up? Will the Minister elaborate on how the scheme will work? Will graduates retain their social welfare payment? Will they also receive a stipend from the employer? She also stated the alternative for young people was to go back into education by going through the Central Applications Office in January. I support that but last year a cap was put on PLC places. Not every school leaver feels further education is for him or her unless it is appropriate and flexible. PLC courses provided flexibility. Has the cap on places been lifted?
The Minister also stated the State has the largest capital programme in Europe with €6.5 billion in investment and 70,000——
The section has nothing to do with the capital programme.
With respect, I beg the Chair's indulgence.
The Senator must stick to the section.
I am referring to the effects of the cutbacks in jobseeker's benefit for young people.
But we are not on the capital programme.
The Minister referred to getting young people back to work but, for example, the capital budget for schools will be reduced. She mentioned opportunities for young people coming on stream in the construction of schools. Will she explain that anomaly? In condemning the cutbacks, people's indebtedness has not been taken into account. That is why there is stress. Everyone fell foul of indebtedness during the Celtic tiger, including social welfare recipients.
At no stage did I say carers were happy. Nobody from whom one takes money will be happy. No organisation advocating on behalf of different groups will be happy when it sees a cut coming. At no stage did I imply it or say it.
The Minister stated the half rate allowance had not been touched.
The Minister to continue, without interruption.
She cannot have it both ways.
Carers and the Carers Association are happy the half rate allowance and the respite care grant were protected.
They are not happy with the cut in the carer's allowance.
Nobody is implying anybody would be happy with the cut. Let us put this in perspective. The payment is still €10 a week more than in 2007 and prices have fallen. The cut is between €8.30 and €8.50 depending on the schemes people are on.
The number of training and education places has increased. They include 3,500 under the European globalisation adjustment fund, 3,500 under the activation fund and 9,000 FÁS training places in addition to the other schemes run by the Department of Education and Science and FÁS. The graduate placement scheme was launched during the summer but the criteria were amended at the beginning of this month. Up until then, there were 50 starts every week and I anticipate that will increase because more employers are participating. Up to the beginning of December, an employer had to have ten employees or more. We anticipate the number of employers will increase.
Does the employer pay a stipend as well?
No, but graduates are keen to take up the places.
Is it any employer?
I can get the Senator all of the details because it is a valuable scheme——
I thank the Minister.
——and one probably worth advertising, not so much to graduates as to employers. However, we must ensure it does not result in job displacement.
I appreciate that.
It comes back to the core issue in that what we propose is a cut in the rates. Difficult and all as that is — it is a very fine balancing act — it is about supporting young people and giving them an incentive to remain in education and training. It is working for 18 and 19 year olds and we believe it can work with older groups. It is about continuing to support carers and people with disabilities, while recognising that any cut we make will impact on them. Given the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves, I regret to state we find ourselves with no choice.
We have wandered widely but the Leas-Chathaoirleach has wisely restrained us and brought us back. I hope I do not fall too much in that area.
I tabled an amendment following yesterday's discussion and know the Minister's agreement in principle comes later when matters such as dental benefit will be discussed. The Minister used the word "cut". A problem that many of us have — it is not confined to those of us on this side of the House — is that a number of individuals, because of their circumstances, will be hit, not once but on multiple occasions. That is a particular difficulty. If each person was asked to take one cut, it would be one thing, but some people will have a double, triple or quadruple whammy.
In general, with regard to people with disabilities — I have something to say, in particular, about those who are blind — the evidence shows that they already face extra costs of €40 a week above those of the average citizen. This evidence was produced by a combination of the Disability Federation of Ireland and Indecon. People with disabilities are also two and a half times more likely to be unemployed, which needs to be borne in mind.
With regard to the principle I am examining in the case of jobseeker's allowance which we will discuss later, the point I was trying to make, with which the Minister agreed, was on suitable employment. The Minister has indicated — there is a rationale behind it — that to a certain extent she is presenting people with an option; they can accept the cut and go with the system or they can go to another European Union state where they will find that the competitive rate is considerably lower than it is here. The intention is to encourage people to return to education. I fully support this, but there may well be people for whom further education is not the most appropriate choice because they are temperamentally unsuited for another reason or because they just do not want to do so. The Minister has mentioned that there are a number of educators in the House. In my case, I am a retired educator and know as a tutor that one of the greatest emotional and intellectual problems with students was encountered when they were coerced into taking a course for which they were not temperamentally suited and which they did not want to take. That has to be borne in mind.
I understand there are great difficulties in the country and that we need to support the measures taken in the interests of the State where they are appropriate. Therefore, I am not overheated on this issue, but I will have more to say further down the line. There are so many variables in the equation I do not know how it can be done. I do not understand computers or whether it is computer programmed.
What about the case of somebody who is the victim of a multiple whammy? At what point does it stop? I have received letters, as I am sure the Minister and all Members have, from people who explain that they are in a wheelchair, disabled or carers. In one sense, it shows us the wonderful human resource in the country that people who are themselves disabled act as carers for their ailing parents. They are whacked in half a dozen ways in terms of the disability allowance, dental benefit and the various measures and cutbacks. A time comes when the pips really have to squeak because they are so squeezed. My sympathy goes to people who have to take cut, not once but a number of times. Small amounts such as the 50 cent prescription charge sound laughable, but if one is on a series of medications that must be dispensed at various times during the month and one also collects medication on behalf of an ailing parent, it all mounts up. That is the only point I have to make at this stage on the principle.
Last week in the other House Deputy Róisín Shortall raised the matter of assessment by the social inclusion unit of the Department regarding the poverty-proofing of the budget. The Minister indicated that it would be published in a couple of days. Has this been done? If not, when will it be done and will it be made available to us during the course of this debate? These cuts will have an impact on the national anti-poverty strategy. Does the Government plan to rewrite and reformulate that strategy?
To answer Senator Norris, I accept that people with disabilities have particular needs; there is no doubt about this. In trying to frame savings in the social welfare budget, once we decided those aged over 66 years and children in receipt of social welfare payments would be protected, we were left with a very large group under the age of 66 years. It would be very difficult to begin distinguishing within that group. Carers play a very special role, but how does one exclude carers and not exclude people with disabilities? How does one exclude people on disability benefit and not exclude those in receipt of an invalidity payment? How does one exclude all of those and tell a struggling lone parent that a carer in receipt of the slightly larger payment of €212 per week as opposed to €196 per week will not face cuts but that he or she will? It was a very delicate balancing act.
Fine Gael in its proposals suggested cutting lone parent, widows' and unemployment payments. I was not willing to distinguish between various groups.
No, we did not.
Yes, it did. For the record, the Fine Gael proposals only excluded people on disability benefit, carers and the blind. All others, including widows——
We did not propose cuts to child benefit either.
——of working age and lone parents——
Here are the Fine Gael proposals. Show it to me.
I suggest Senator Buttimer read the document. It includes cuts for all those of working age with the exception of disability——
Carers, the disabled and the blind.
That is it. The rest of——
I will read it to the House.
The Senator will notice that it suggests cutting payments to widows, lone parents and the unemployed.
The Minister is spinning to deflect from herself. She is misleading the House.
The Minister to continue, without interruption.
Both parties, in recognition of the difficulties we face, acknowledged the social welfare budget had to be reduced. We did so, while protecting the elderly and children. Unfortunately, it involved cutting payments to other groups.
Child benefit was cut by €16 per month.
We also protected children of vulnerable families from cuts to child benefit.
Senator Norris mentioned suitability with regard to education and is absolutely right. I saw a very good example in Limerick where people had been referred to the national employment action plan from the social welfare office. Some were sent to FÁS and others to the local employment service. The local employment service in Limerick took those young people with literacy and communication problems and devised a course for them in order that they would not end up on courses with reasonably well educated persons with much work experience. They structured it locally. We are trying to extend that model elsewhere.
That is a very good example. Can it be encouraged?
It is an excellent example which I have been trying to encourage. With all of the various agencies involved now working together, we should be able to do so.
With regard to the national anti-poverty strategy, we are still on target because the average industrial wage has decreased. Because incomes in the private sector have decreased, the relativity is affected.
An extremely interesting question was asked by Senator Buttimer about poverty-proofing by the social inclusion unit. This concerned me. I know it worried many of the people involved in the Combat Poverty Agency. It does not attract the greatest credibility when the Department making the cuts also assesses the impact on poverty. The fact the social inclusion unit is part of the Department of Social and Family Affairs does not make people inclined to treat it with the respect with which it might be treated if it was part of a fully independent group.
One of the great moral disasters of this current economic difficulty is that the Government disabled so many of those groups that would have spoken out. The credibility of this proofing is reduced by the fact that it is an in-house job. There is a clear and classic conflict of interest. Although it would need to be done at an international level, it is insane that we allow groups like Standard & Poor's and Fitch to continue to operate because these groups were complicit in such conflicts of interest. We have been landed in a financial mess because people were essentially allowed to rate themselves. It really does not stack up. There may very well be independent minded and forensic people in the Department who are doing this, but I do not think people would be inclined to believe them, because they are essentially carrying out an in-house audit. I have always been against that. Whether it is newspapers or lawyers regulating themselves, these things do not attract public support.
The poverty impact assessment that is usually published with the budget is normally carried out by the Department of Finance in respect of taxation changes. As there were no taxation changes in this budget, the assessment was not attached to it. The poverty impact assessment should then have been carried out by researchers in the Combat Poverty Agency, or wherever. Those people, with all their expertise and independence, are now part of the social inclusion unit. The two Departments will have to examine together the overall impact of the budget, and that is being done at the moment. However, that does not stop groups like CORI, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and so on from doing their assessment as well. There will be plenty of objective analysis.
I am glad to see the Minister looked suitably embarrassed by the inadequacy of her answer. If there is anything worse than the Department of Social and Family Affairs assessing itself, it is to have the Department of Finance proof against poverty.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Corrigan, Maria.
- Daly, Mark.
- de Búrca, Déirdre.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Hanafin, John.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- McDonald, Lisa.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- Norris, David.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Prendergast, Phil.
- Ross, Shane.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Twomey, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Nicky McFadden.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I will speak about the effects of the section on lone parents and recipients of farm assist. Last year, the early child care supplement was removed from parents, reducing their income by €664 for each child under five years. A single parent family with two children has sustained a cut in income of 10.4% or €1,820 per annum in the past year.
I am concerned about incentives to work. The Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs frequently discusses how one incentivises those on low incomes to return to work. Reducing the lone parent benefit by the margin proposed will act as a disincentive to work. I ask the Minister to comment.
The Minister referred to having to make cuts. The Fine Gael policy document refers to making cuts in social welfare, but the NewERA document would also lead to the creation of 105,000 jobs. The €500,000 salary of the regulator of the banks flies in the face of the plight of those on social welfare, as does the provision of a new car for the CEO of FÁS. I do not see why the pay of people like Members was not cut further. Those who receive €196 in disability allowance stand to lose €1,820 per year. This money could be used to put food on the table and make their homes warm at night in order that they would not have to go to bed cold. The carbon tax also affects this group. The measure on family income supplement, dealt with in the next section, is one I warmly welcome. I cannot recall the name of the other measure that will benefit those who have lost child benefit.
The increase in the qualified child allowance.
I said yesterday that I welcomed this measure. I acknowledge that the Minister is trying to compensate, but children in this group are living in consistent poverty. The whole family are affected when cuts are made. This point has been proved by research, of which the Minister is aware. I ask her to comment on my serious concerns about this vulnerable group. The children in question are the most vulnerable and living in consistent poverty.
Figures from the CSO suggest 10,000 people avail of the farm assist scheme, a 30% increase on the figure for last year, but in the same period incomes plummeted by 30%. The people concerned lost the benefit of early installation aid, the early retirement scheme and the fallen animal scheme and are put to the pin of their collar because of the fall in milk and beef prices and because cereals were destroyed by bad weather, not to mention the godforsaken floods. This group is probably the most vulnerable. Last week Senator Cassidy said one could always judge the state of the nation by how farmers were doing. They are doing very badly. I am sure the Minister is aware from her rural constituency how badly they are doing. It is incumbent on me, therefore, to oppose this measure. I look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister.
We must consider the value we place on people. This section is a full frontal assault on a wide variety of individuals. We are putting deficit reduction and balancing the books ahead of people on the front line. We are not considering people. The Minister referred to Inclusion Ireland. I want Senator Butler to listen to the following quotation. I want him to be clear on what he will be voting for. He cannot have it both ways. Inclusion Ireland states:
The Disability Allowance now stands at €196 a week, and this cutback is compounded by other cuts to child benefit, the prescription levy and cuts in dental treatment. This does not tie in with rhetoric about protecting the vulnerable, nor do cuts to the health budget. It is also at variance with the National Disability Strategy, which is often spoken about by Government as evidence of their commitment to people with disabilities.
That comes from an independent group not engaged in party politics. Fine Gael in its strategy, to which Senator McFadden referred, proposes a saving of €400 million in the social welfare budget. We did not propose cuts in child benefit, nor did we propose policies that would hurt and not protect the most vulnerable. We proposed back to work initiatives to take a minimum of 50,000 people off the live register in 2010 and close to 175,000 by 2013. Unlike the Government, Fine Gael has a job creation policy. Rather than taking €100 from social welfare payments to 20 and 21 year olds or €150 from payments to 22 to 24 year olds, the Fine Gael proposals include references to training and internships in a back to work scheme. Mr. Jim Power, chief economist at Friends First, stated, "The Fine Gael proposal is detailed, costed and should not be too difficult to implement if the party were in Government" and "There is now a very credible alternative." This is about protecting the most vulnerable. How can Senator Butler and his colleagues justify making a cut of €16 in child benefit, a reduction in social welfare payments to those under 25 years of age and hammering the blind and the disabled? How can this be justified? I am not an economist and the Minister might well suggest Mr. Power is a member of some group or party. I have no idea because I do not know the man and would not recognise him if I saw him. However, he is an economist, I am not.
The drug prescription charges introduced by Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, will add to the level of poverty. What concerns me is that we are using the budget as an economic measure or accountancy exercise. I understand the Minister had to make choices and could not add two and two and get six rather than four. However, I must return to the point that in so doing the Minister failed to protect those most in need of protection. I do not advocate a lifetime of reliance on social welfare. A few weeks ago in The Irish Times there was an interesting article which encompassed three case studies involving a self-employed, married person with two children, a person on social welfare and a PAYE worker. The person on social welfare came out best. I do not agree with this, but in the world in which I live the people I meet are looking to the State for assistance.
The Minister referred to young people, more and more of whom are moving back into the family home. Last Saturday, while canvassing, I met a woman in her 60s and her husband. They have been married for 40 years and were looking forward to some form of normality without the kids under their feet. However, their two children have had to move back into the family home, one because they lost their job and the other because they could not afford to repay their mortgage and had to rent out their house. We are creating a different culture in Irish society.
I would like to return to the reduction of 4% in social welfare which should be considered alongside the withdrawal of the Christmas bonus which amounted to another 2%. I do not know who to believe when it comes to inflation. As Senator Norris said yesterday, the Department of Finance's forecasts have been wrong on every single occasion I can remember. What is the actual cost of inflation? Last month's consumer price index was the lowest in recent times.
I am not convinced that the proposals in the budget are appropriate. How can we justify penalising people in the manner proposed? As I said on the Order of Business this morning, much of the economic turmoil was caused by friends of Fianna Fáil who visited the Galway tent. They are walking around the four provinces of Ireland scot-free.
Hear, hear.
As I said this morning, they are hiding from the television cameras and photographic lenses. It is not that they are embarrassed — they simply do not want to be seen. That is a fact. The process to which Bernie Madoff was subjected in the United States ended with a conviction. We have had nothing here. Members of the great old party came here during the years of growth under Deputy Bertie Ahern to trot out the same line. They stuck out their chests and claimed to have looked after social welfare recipients and pensioners. When they knocked on doors, they told people they had given them an extra €10 here and an extra €5 there. They are now taking back that money. The old line, "Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar," is being rewritten today. I am annoyed that no attempt has been made in the Bill to provide for parity and fairness. I subscribe to the theory that if one cannot afford it, one should do without it. The Government is sending a message to the plain people of Ireland, as Deputy Healy Rae calls them, that it will bail out the banks and that the people can pay for it. The Bill is very unfair. It contains no job creation policy and gives no hope.
I ask the Senator to confine his remarks to section 4.
I am dealing with it.
He is deviating quite a bit.
I am looking forward to hearing your response, Senator Butler. You will have to find some justification.
I ask the Senators to address their comments through the Chair.
We must consider the hierarchy of needs within Irish society. A new social order is being created today. Budget 2010 has condemned carers, the blind and the disabled. That is the Government's legacy. I invite Senators to join me tomorrow when I meet people in Cork who are suffering. I ask them to look those people in the eye before they decide it is okay to take €8 from them. How can we justify a decision to ask people to live on €196 a week?
I would like to respond to Senator Buttimer's proposal that we do nothing. The budget hurts everybody, regardless of from where they come. Fine Gael's policies are very suspect. It states its policies have been costed. I suggest it is taking soft options, rather than dealing with the difficult position in which the Minister finds herself.
Sitting suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Senators McFadden and Buttimer raised certain issues concerning the disincentive to work. It is very important that we ensure we keep an incentive to work. The value of family income supplement is that the low income earner can bridge the gap between social welfare and low paid employment. We have, therefore, protected it. We have also protected child benefit for those on family non-income supplement. Had we just done it for the social welfare recipient, it would have created a real poverty trap; therefore, there is built-in protection for such persons.
To take the current figures for, say, a working man who has a wife who is not working outside the home and two children, if he is on the minimum wage and working a 38 hour week, he receives approximately €328.70, whereas if he was unemployed, he would receive €391. Therefore, it is built-in that one can receive more on social welfare than if one is on the minimum wage. However, the man on the minimum wage can receive family income supplement to top up his income. We always try to ensure one is never better off on social welfare. A person could look at these rates and point out that the figures do not include rent supplement, the benefit of a medical card and any of the additional payments a person might receive. Because income rates have fallen substantially for everybody in the past year, these are some of the considerations we have had to take into account.
With regard to the lone parent, while she is taking a cut, she is not taking a cut in child benefit because she will get it back through the qualified child allowance. That is important for somebody like her.
There has been an increase in the number of farmers looking for farm assist scheme payments but that is why it is in place. I met the IFA and spoke to the ICMSA. Obviously, they are very anxious that farmers do not feel they are becoming dependent on social welfare because it is a cultural step for persons who have always worked on the land and do not want to be on social welfare. In the budget the Government introduced a new environmental scheme for farmers which is designed to keep them on the land, recognising the difficulties they have had in recent months. The farm assist scheme has literally been designed to do this — to assist farmers in the work they are doing, recognising that their incomes have fallen. We are seeing an increase but hope more farmers will realise the scheme is available to them. It is not about dependency but about supporting them to continue to do the work they are doing on the farm.
It has been reduced, however. That is the issue.
I thank the Minister for clarifying both issues. We want to highlight that for farmers, in particular, the schemes I have outlined have been removed or reduced and that farm assist is also now being reduced. Some of those involved, if they have medical cards, will also face additional prescription charges and the removal of optical and dental benefit. While I do not want to keep repeating these points, these are very serious cuts.
I thank the Minister for organising with community welfare officers that they distribute humanitarian aid to those who have been caught up in the flooding. However, while the humanitarian aid fund for farmers contains a sum of €2 million for the provision of fodder, their farms have been decimated and destroyed and many acres are under water. It is an extra blow to farmers that their farm assist payment is also being cut. It is very difficult to be on the land at this time, particularly with REPS 4 in difficulty.
I oppose the section.
On the flooding, because the issue is important, a sum of €10 million has been made available in humanitarian aid. So far community welfare officers have assisted 1,300 families. Many of the claims submitted to date have been quite small, but we envisage that, as people go back to their homes, they will realise exactly what is needed and the fund will be available to them. We, therefore, expect to receive many more applications during the spring. We also know that in towns such as Clonmel people were not able to take out insurance because their properties had previously been flooded, but in other areas people had insurance because it was their first such awful experience. We understand they are trying their insurance companies first before they seek humanitarian aid. Nonetheless, the fund will be available to them.
An allocation of €70 million was announced in the budget for infrastructural works which are just as important as humanitarian aid because we want to make sure this does not happen again. That money is available immediately and will be into next year to ensure we can carry out flood relief works. Humanitarian aid is available through my Department and there is no backlog of applications. People are now beginning to come forward. We will certainly keep the position under review in case more is needed.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, John.
- Corrigan, Maria.
- Daly, Mark.
- de Búrca, Déirdre.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- McDonald, Lisa.
- Ó Brolcháin, Niall.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- O’Brien, Francis
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Sullivan, Ned.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Norris, David.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Prendergast, Phil.
- Regan, Eugene.
- Ross, Shane.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Twomey, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Nicky McFadden.
Question declared carried.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 18, before "The", to insert the following:
"(1) No person shall have his/her jobseeker's allowance reduced on the grounds of refusal to apply for a job unless the job declined is both suitable and appropriate.".
I tabled this amendment after the debate on Second Stage when I pointed out that the Minister had on several occasions referred to the reduction in jobseeker's allowance if a person had not taken a suitable or appropriate — I do not remember her exact words — job. She returned to this point on a couple of occasions. I then asked to some of the advisers whether this was contained in the principal Act that was being amended because it obviously was not in the text of the Bill before us and I was told it was not. After subsequent discussion I was told it was intended to bring this forward in the spring.
This is not good enough. I will be pleased if I draw the Minister out to make it clear that this is the Government's firm intention but I do not see any reason it cannot be done now and why this House cannot, quite uncontroversially, show its approval and give a sense to the Minister's express statements in her own speech and amend the Bill to make it sensible. In light of the Minister's speech I am surprised this wording was not contained in the legislation. Is it the Minister's intention to suggest we wait until spring? I wonder what she means by "the spring", because that is a rather vague seasonal phrase and it could mean anything and I would like a specific date. What quality of undertaking or commitment is this? The Minister is a woman of sterling honesty and principle. Others of her Government and her party are not and have treated this House to numerous examples where commitments have been given and when they were challenged, replied that it was not an absolute commitment. If this House is given a commitment, I want to know the date, whether the commitment is absolute and binding, and whether it will be done. I would much prefer the Minister to act upon her own words and include this form of words or some other suitable word. Is Report Stage being taken this afternoon?
The order is for Committee and Remaining Stages of the Bill today.
In that case it would be rather a rushed job but we can still always return to this amendment, particularly because there are no other amendments except for the opposition to sections. We will be trundling through the lobbies fairly regularly. I am interested in the Minister's reply.
I support Senator Norris's amendment. This section deals with reducing the rate of jobseeker's allowance to €100 per week for persons aged 20 and 21 years. The young people played no part in the collapse of the economy and these are the people who did not even vote in the last general election. It is outrageous that some of them will be facing straitened circumstances. I acknowledge that such persons can live at home and depend on their families but some will be unable to do so and I worry about them.
I support Senator Norris's amendment because the phrase, "in the spring" is vague. I ask for more clarification.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.