It is hard to know where to start on this debate. I am sorry the Minister for Social and Family Affairs is not in the Chamber. I acknowledge that she has been attentive to the debate. I genuinely feel sorry for the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, who is popular. She has been shamefully treated on this occasion by the Minister for Finance in terms of the social welfare allocation. While it might not be fair to say the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, has taken advantage of a new Minister, it is certainly fair and correct to say he has imposed severe cuts on her Department's budget. I refer in particular to what have become known as the 16 cuts. The serious shortfall in her Department's allocation does not reflect on the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. She will fight her corner over the next few years to reverse the cuts. No amount of bluster by the Minister for Finance who shouted down a reporter on "Morning Ireland" can mask the fact that serious cutbacks have been made.
According to an answer to a parliamentary question, the savings being made through the cutbacks amount to €55.8 million. The cut in the back to education allowance will save €2.2 million and affect 1,200 people. The transition in the one-parent family allowance will net a saving of €1.3 million and affect 350 people. The cut in minimum rent contribution will save €3 million and affect 60,000 people. The exclusion from rent allowance of people who are working will save €1 million and affect 350 people. The ruling on no rent allowance for six months will save €10.5 million and affect 4,000 people. The cut in crèche supplement will save €2.3 million and affect 1,600 people. The cut in the money advice and budgeting service will save €700,000 and affect 370 people. The cut in diet supplement allowance will save €1 million and affect 13,500 people. The cuts in child dependant allowance, unemployment benefit and disability benefit will save €10.4 million and affect 16,800 people. The cut in the unemployment benefit earnings threshold will save €7.4 million and affect 10,300 people. A cut in half rate payments for one-parent and widows' allowances will save €5.5 million and affect an average of 2,000 people per week. The changes to consideration criteria for disability and unemployment benefit will save €2.5 million and affect an average of 400 people per week. The cut in unemployment benefit entitlements will save €5.2 million and affect an average of 700 people per week. These are the facts of the 16 cuts.
No matter what Deputy Dennehy says, these cutbacks represent the continued breaking of promises made during the general election. We will see whether the people remember this or not. It is a matter for the electorate. While I have never been one to prejudge what the electorate will think, in my office and on the street I hear from people who remember what the Government said.
It is appropriate to refer in this regard to the cuts in the community employment schemes and the effect of those on, for example, people with disabilities. There are people with disabilities who can live independent lives in their communities because they have a personal assistant who is on a community employment or FÁS scheme. In my Galway constituency, 15 such assistants are employed, of whom seven will no longer be able to continue on the community employment scheme at the end of the year as their three years will be up. That represents a serious cutback and a serious problem for the dependent person who finds himself or herself without a personal assistant. A person who was able to live independently in the community may now be forced into institutional care.
The community employment embargo will also have a serious effect on the person who loses his or her job. It could affect two families. The effect could be long-term in that people may be forced to seek institutional care resulting in a far greater cost to the State. This is being done for the sake of the €25 difference between the unemployment assistance rate and the community employment rate. Somebody in the Government should wake up and look at what is happening in our communities.
Perhaps someone did see what was happening. There was a short-lived revolt led by the Minister of State from my constituency, Deputy Fahey. He and 40 backbenchers signed a petition which asked the Minister for Finance not to make cutbacks in the community employment schemes. However, when the Labour Party tabled a motion on the subject last Tuesday, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, made a rambling and half-hearted withdrawal of his previous opposition. He went on to attack my constituency colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins. When he finished, the Government still had ten minutes left to speak, but there was not one backbencher to take it up. It had to be taken up by the Opposition. A warning must have been received as many Government backbenchers rambled into the House on Wednesday to contribute to the debate and to withdraw their previous opposition. They voted against the Labour Party motion and, in effect, for the cutbacks.
Had Deputy Dennehy not used the word "hypocrite" so often, I would not mention it. He protested too much. The Members who can be described as hypocrites are the ones who caved in last week. They were like chocolate soldiers coming to the House. As soon as the heat was turned up, they melted. If that is not hypocritical, I do not know what is. I was reminded of the character Tommy Owens in "The Plough and the Stars". He said he would die for Ireland, but he never got the chance. Last week, the Government Deputies got a chance to vote on a motion and they elected to support the cuts. If that is hypocrisy, so be it.
While there are pros and cons to rent supplement, people will face hardship as a result of the Government's cutbacks. Health boards can refuse a supplement to anybody not already renting for six months, unless they are homeless or there are compelling reasons to provide supplement. I ask the Minister to provide clarification of what these compelling reasons might be. Is the case of a parent and children fleeing a violent situation and seeking refuge a compelling reason? The normal procedure in this instance is that they must go to a refuge and identify a landlord who will accept rent receipts. The rent supplement must also be assessed through a community welfare officer in order for them to secure a tenure on their identified property. How do parents and children in such circumstances secure tenancy of a home for six months without a rent supplement? It is not hypocritical to ask that the procedure to be spelled out for us. We require a straight answer. Is the Minister suggesting that such a family remain in the refuge? I am sure that is not what she suggests but we would like clarification of the matter.
Another example of the cutbacks is in education allowances. In Galway city, the back to education programme has been enormously successful with young mothers who avail of the back to education allowance and crèche facilities. The cuts imposed mean that to qualify for the back to education allowance a claimant must be unemployed for 15 months rather than six months. A person pursuing education, at least, makes an effort to earn supplementary allowance. The supplement given to recipients on the social welfare allowance being supported by MABS will be discontinued. Will the Government force those families back into the black economy and into the clutches of moneylenders? Why does it propose to discontinue a programme which improved the standard of living for participants and their families and which might subsequently lead to full employment and full participation in society? What is the purpose of extending the length of time required to qualify for the allowance? Why not cherish the enthusiasm and willingness of the claimants instead of crushing them?
People will live in poverty as a result of the cutbacks. Poverty is defined in the national anti-poverty strategy, adopted by the Government in April 1997, as follows:
People are living in poverty if their income and resources, material, cultural and social, are so inadequate as to preclude them from having the same standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally. As a result of inadequate income and resources, people may be excluded and marginalised from participating in activities which are considered the norm for other people in society.
That definition was adopted by the Government in April 1997 but people are now being forced into that situation.
It is important that people realise that those on social welfare do not wish to be in that position. They are not looking for hand-outs but are seeking support through a particularly tough time in their lives. Unemployment or disability may touch any of our lives at any time. People must be treated with due respect. There should be greater incentives for people to return to work rather than putting obstacles in their way. Currently, if people go back to work they lose all their secondary benefits, medical cards, fuel allowance, back to school allowance etc. People who go back to work on a temporary basis – for example, a man anxious to return to work after six months or a year might get a temporary job on a building for two or three months – lose their benefits when they return to work. Not only that but when the temporary work ends they are put through the rigours of a further assessment although the facts and figures are on the files. I cannot understand why there is such red tape, creating a disincentive for people to go back to work.
Another anomaly I have come across is the regulation concerning the assessment of an applicant for maternity leave or benefit. The Department now requires the provision of the figures for the two previous years' taxable earnings. This discriminates against women on maternity leave. In a normal family a woman of child bearing age might have a child every two years and would be out of work for a considerable length of time in that period. She would also do little overtime as she would want to spend as much time as possible with her child. Why can she not be assessed on her last full year's earnings? I ask the Minister to examine and correct that anomaly.
Deputy Crawford referred to another anomaly and I have raised the same issue at every budget debate for the past seven years. I wrote to the Minister, made submissions to the review group on carer's allowance and raised the matter through parliamentary questions. By coincidence, I tabled a question on carer's allowance the day before the budget which asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to explain her plans in the budget to facilitate full-time carer's who were in receipt of other social welfare payments so as to be eligible for the carer's allowance while continuing to be full-time carers. An freagra a fuair mé ón Aire, ná "Caithfidh an Teachta fanacht go dtí tráthnóna amárach." Bhí mé sásta leis an bhfreagra sin ag an am, ach tá mé fós ag fanacht. Ní raibh aon sásamh sa buiséad, cosúil le gach bliain eile. Tá brón orm gurb é sin an freagra a fuair mé.
