The nub of the issue in this budget is, as referred to by my colleague, Deputy Burton, the growth of relative and persistent poverty despite our wealth. We are the third highest in the OECD in terms of income per head of gross domestic product, yet we are the second most unequal country in the OECD in terms of measurement. That is, essentially, what is wrong with this country and this and previous budgets.
We are witnessing a growing inequality in terms of relative poverty between the better-off and the less well-off. The argument was made that the rising tide lifts all boats. It does not lift those on the rocky shore. The Bill and the budget put many people who thought they were rising with the tide back on the rocky shore.
Deputy Burton referred to poverty traps. I would like to develop that point and to refer to specific areas. People hoping for the opportunity to get out of the poverty trap are being thrown back into it. That is the terrible shame of missed opportunities. The economy had begun to turn the tide long before the two parties in Government took office. The foundations for that turn were laid when the Labour Party was in Government. We share some credit in that regard.
We have become a richer country; nobody denies that. However, relative poverty has increased. We have become a country more divided in prosperity. It gave us the opportunity to narrow those gaps and to rid ourselves of the type of poverty witnessed in the "Prime Time" programme shown two weeks ago on television. Young people were indulging in crime against their own communities. I have witnessed sheer poverty in my constituency. I am sure other Deputies have witnessed it in their constituencies. That is the nub of the issue and the Government must address it.
The threshold for medical cards is not being increased. An increase in one's social welfare payment can result in one being denied a medical card. The suggestion is that this does not happen but, in reality, it does. The Bill provides for a 20 cent a day increase in the family allowance. That allowance would have been increased by €24 a month if the Government had honoured its commitment in this regard.
Regarding the 16 savage cuts referred to by other speakers, some of them will result in people losing opportunities they might otherwise have retained. Last week, the Minister said changes were being made in the back to education allowance because people from other EU countries were sponging off our system. I tabled a parliamentary question in this regard. There are 7,498 participants in the scheme but we only have information, in terms of nationality, for 5,273 of them.
Only 9% of people on the back to education allowance are from other EU states. In order to make savings in this area, the Minister is denying those without a good level of education the opportunity to get further education. It is well known in education that people move from state to state – many Irish people go outside Ireland to be educated at third level and benefit from rights in other EU states. This is a small comeback, yet the Minister has denied the unemployed and lone parents the opportunity to go back to education. Surely education is the greatest opportunity people can have to move from poverty to a decent income.
The Minister previously indicated that she intended to expand the school meals programme. While it was referred to in the budget, I have not seen anything in the Bill that shows how the Minister might fulfil her commitments. This scheme is beneficial to children in poverty.
There is no increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. This is something that impacts on poor families at the start of the school year when expenses are high. The level is currently €80 for primary students and €150 for second level students. To be able to meet incurred costs, it would need to be €140 for primary students and €220 for second level students. Yet again, parents are to be faced with worrying about how they will pay for the back to school needs of their children.
Deputy McGuinness correctly said that local authority rents will claw back the social welfare increases but he failed to mention that increases in the cost of ESB, gas, television licences and telephone bills etc., and general increases in the cost of basic foods, will do likewise. Low income families will not benefit greatly from the miserly increases contained in the Bill.
The Minister has announced changes to the rent allowance regime. I cannot understand how people will find the money for the first six months and then need the allowance after this time has elapsed. I think of people living in packed family homes where the only option is for a member of the family, such as a daughter with a child, to leave home and seek a rent allowance. How is she supposed to find the money for a deposit and then pay the large rents now common in the private sector without access to a rent allowance? Can the Minister explain this? I do not understand how people are supposed to find the money. If they have managed to scrape together the money for the first six months – in some cases they may have to borrow from illegal moneylenders – are they then to be asked why they need rent allowance if they survived without it? These are the questions people are asking, but they do not get answers because local authority accommodation is not available for many of them. They are stuck in a trap from which they do not know how to escape. People have been in tears when talking to me about some of these issues.
An announcement was made that the rent allowance is to be capped. although exceptions can be made. What happens to a person on a housing list living in a private rented house but who is forced to move out as the rent is above the limit allowable based on the size of their family? They will not be able to find anything in the private sector as many landlords do not accept this allowance. I know of someone who had to move into a psychiatric hospital this week as she had been forced to move out of her house when she exceeded the limit for rent allowance. While this was not the only reason it was one of the factors. This is a real issue and the Government needs to listen to the kind of person I am talking about. It might then see that it has created problems for people who were just about managing until now. They may have been thinking about going back to education, getting a rent allowance and hoping to get a local authority house in the near future. They do not know what to do now.
While the diet supplement will not be withdrawn from those already in receipt of it, families are concerned they will not get the supplement if they have a celiac or diabetic child. This may also affect those suffering from cancer and other serious illnesses, as I know of dieticians recommending high protein food for them. Surely the professional word of the dietician is enough to say that someone should have a diet supplement. Until now, people who found they were suffering from a disease would have their dietician sign their form in order to get dietary allowance. It seems from what the Minister has said that even the professional word of a dietician will no longer be enough.