Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 10 November 2004
65 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when he will complete his review of the 16 social welfare cutbacks announced in November 2003; if the review will be completed ahead of the publication of Estimates and budget 2005; the consultations he has had with charitable and voluntary groups regarding the impact of these cuts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28257/04]
View answerThe Estimates for the Department of Social and Family Affairs announced last November, included a number of provisions to better target resources within the social welfare code. I have asked my officials to review all of the measures in question and I expect this work to be completed in the near future. I will bring forward proposals, if appropriate, in the light of the findings of the review.
On 11 October last, I hosted a pre-budget forum to which a wide variety of organisations with interests in social welfare issues had been invited. In all, 27 organisations attended on the day and I extended an invitation to each of them to meet me separately to outline their work and to make their concerns known to me. Since then, I met a number of these organisations. I have listened carefully to any views expressed by them in regard the measures announced last year and, looking ahead, to improvements sought in social welfare provisions generally in the forthcoming budget. I intend to meet the remaining groups over the coming months.
My priority in the forthcoming budget is to make significant progress in delivering on the social welfare commitments in the programme for Government, Sustaining Progress and the national anti-poverty strategy.
Resources will be targeted towards helping those most in need in order, not alone to raise their standard of living, but to ensure that everyone is a valued citizen who can make his or her individual contribution to society, regardless of circumstances. The intention is to make a positive difference in the lives of people around the country who depend on the social welfare system and I will bring various proposals forward in that regard in the near future.
I have already congratulated the Minister on his appointment to the new portfolio and wish him the best of luck. However, he has created a fog of confusion, given that he now professes to being a socialist. We were not aware that he was a closet socialist until his statement recently at a meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. Accepting the Minster's bona fides and his expression of socialist tendencies, which I had not encountered heretofore, he must have been shocked at the rightwing bent of his Government and his predecessor, who visited these savage cuts upon ordinary working class people and the marginalised. It begs the question as to how it all happened. How could the actions taken by a Government of which the Minister was a member and which shares responsibility for every decision made at the Cabinet table, slip under his socialist nose? The cuts have brought hardship to so many vulnerable people, for the sake of cynical money, €58 million initially and subsequently less than €15 million, the price of a few electronic voting machines.
Let us get down to a few facts. The Minister now accepts it was a major mistake by his Government, and particularly his predecessor, to do what they did in November 2003. It inflicted hardship on people in receipt of rent supplements, on victims of domestic violence who now must declare themselves homeless in order to qualify for rent supplements as well as dietary, crèche and MABS supplements and it emasculated the back to education allowance which is so necessary for many lone parents. We all profess that the best way out of poverty is through education and we emasculate the very scheme that facilitates this.
The Deputy is taking a circuitous route to the question.
I have indicated the questions. Will the Minister say how these cuts could have escaped the application of the poverty-proofing regime which is supposed to operate under the partnership process and Sustaining Progress? Was everybody asleep or was this applied at all, was it just another fog of confusion or does poverty-proofing mean anything to this Government?
The Deputy will have to judge for himself whether I am a socialist or a capitalist. I explained to my parliamentary party that throughout my political life I have always believed in competition and in growing the economy strongly. The purpose of a competitive economy is not just to produce a few millionaires but to assist the boats that get left behind in the rising tide. That did not dawn on me since I took on this portfolio, but has always been my view. However, my previous post was concerned with growing the economy and helping to bring about the necessary level of growth so that we could arrive at a point where our social obligations could be met in a more targeted and focused way.
I have announced a review of these changes that were made, on a case by case basis. I have already spent many hours in discussion with officials on each and every one of them. If the Deputy goes through them in detail, I am sure he will be aware that some are designed to remove abuse. Others will be changed, I believe. If one reviews them with an open mind one will see that some of the changes were designed so that available resources could be concentrated in areas of genuine need and to ensure there was no abuse of the system. I have already indicated that these measures are being reviewed and I will bring forward the relevant proposals in the near future. I will fully explain to the House where we stand, item by item and on a case by case basis.
I would like to say to Deputy Penrose——
I have a minute left.
Time is running out for him.
Time will run out for the Government if it continues to behave like that.
There is a difficulty with the Priority Questions. If we have long rambling introductions it will restrict the number of questions which may be asked.
I will abide by the Acting Chairman's ruling and will ask one brief question, as I am trained to do. The Minister made an extraordinary admission when he said recently, in reply to a parliamentary question, that neither he nor his Department knew how many people had been hurt by the cuts and reforms introduced. This is despite the fact that we have been articulating this for the past 12 months, as have the 30 community and voluntary organisations who represent those people. Is that not an extraordinary admission or is it a sign of a Government out of touch with reality?
There are numbers in some cases, but not in others because applications have to be made. While the number of people who apply for a scheme is known this is not necessarily the case as regards those who do not apply. That is why it is not always possible to get accurate numbers. The Deputy will also be aware that in the case of the rent supplement, for example, discussions with the social partners included a review as to whether there was any hardship in that area and produced some samples which are currently being examined. The reason there are not accurate figures in some cases is largely because the Department is not aware of those people who do not apply for a particular scheme.
