Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Youth unemployment does not even feature in the latest Government Action Plan for Jobs. The Minister should read it and perhaps he might see what is happening with his own eyes. Fianna Fáil was the first party to cut jobseeker's allowance for young people. At the time the Labour Party opposed the cuts vehemently and on principle. Responding to Fianna Fáil's budget 2010, the Labour Party spokesperson on social protection said:

The impact on young jobseekers is particularly harsh. This loss of income is bad enough, but it is the intention of these measures that is particularly offensive. It is abundantly clear that the real purpose of these reforms is to promote emigration. [The Labour Party Minister of State, Deputy JOe Costello, has just emigrated from the Chamber, but I will continue.] It is profoundly hypocritical that the Government continually uses the “brain drain” excuse for not increasing income tax on very high earners, yet it is introducing a series of cutbacks for those aged under 25 that actively promotes such a brain drain.

She also stated:

This measure is a kick in the teeth to our young people who have worked hard through school and college to get good degrees. The Government is telling them that there is no place in Ireland for them at the moment and that they would be better off emigrating. That is the wrong message for us to be sending out to our young people, which is why the Labour Party is rejecting this proposal.

That is what the current Minister who holds the social welfare brief, Deputy Burton, said three years ago, yet she is making cuts and changes to the social welfare code. Her party vehemently rejected such measures only three short years ago. What she said three years ago about the Fianna Fáil Government holds true today. This is a budget about emigration and forcing young people out of the country. Shame on the Government.

The Minister reportedly indicated that the cuts are expected to affect only approximately 14,000. I believe that figure will be much higher. Far from discouraging social welfare dependence, the Minister is creating a new welfare trap. What young person in his right mind would risk taking up insecure work that might last between eight and ten weeks only to face a €44 drop in his allowance on returning to social welfare? What of those people who have a history of work but who are on jobseeker's benefit? Now, at the end of the six or nine months, they will face a substantial drop.

SIPTU has said this cut is an attempt to drive young people into jobs with low pay, no pay or out of the country. I agree with it.

Funding for the youth guarantee, which some Ministers and backbenchers will quote, is just €14 million. This specific provision will take out €32 million. Where is the truth in it? It is a grab from the pockets of the young people of Ireland, and it will be seen as such by them. I hope they will not emigrate and that they will stand up to the Government, but I believe many of them decided from last night to look to the bád bán and emigrate from our shores. More is the pity.

Relaxing JobsPlus criteria to allow the entry of people who have been just six months on the dole will not result in many more opportunities, as the Minister has disingenuously suggested. The subsidies for employers rise with the duration spent on the dole with a higher subsidy for those 24 months on jobseeker's allowance.

At the same time as the Minister is cutting payments to the young jobseekers, she is making a sneaky cut to the financial supports available to poor families seeking to send their children to college or to keep them in college. With this budget, the Minister proposes to cut the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance scheme. Under the scheme, families had been able to apply for a payment of €200 towards the cost of sending their 18 to 22 year olds to college. In 2014, this is to be restricted to secondary school only. That is another sneaky cut. Once again, the slyness of the Labour Party knows no bounds.

The Government is cutting social insurance benefits, including maternity benefits, illness benefits, the invalidity pension and bereavement benefits, with a view to saving €74 million. These are hard-earned benefits that have been paid for through the PRSI system. They were committed to over the years and people grew to expect them. That is why they put up with making major PRSI payments. The Government does not have to do what it is doing. These cuts are totally avoidable. The Government could instead have shored up the social insurance fund or made up the money with a small increase in contributions from employers that can afford to pay more. I refer to those large companies that are making increased profit at this time of austerity. Sinn Féin's proposal to introduce a new employer's rate of PRSI of 15.75% on wages in excess of €100,000 would raise €119.1 million. The saving of €74 million represents a sleazy, slimy cut that the Minister is introducing. The Minister would be making a profit if she listened to Sinn Féin. By cutting maternity benefit and abolishing the bereavement grant, this Government is picking pockets from the cradle to the grave.

The latest cut to maternity benefit comes on the back of reduced maternity benefits from July of this year when the benefit was subjected to tax. The majority of maternity benefit recipients will now see their weekly payment cut by €32. This is a cut of €832 over the course of mothers' six-month period of leave. For many new mothers, maternity benefit is their only income. For those mothers who are fortunate enough to have their maternity benefit supplemented by their employers, the cumulative impact of this Government's cut and tax measure could see their benefit shrink by up to €126, down as far as €135.70. That is a potential loss to a woman on maternity benefit of €3,276. Shame on the Government.

The bereavement grant is a small assistance towards the cost of funerals for workers with a solid contributions record. It is just €850 towards the crippling costs of burials. The Irish Association of Funeral Directors said yesterday that the average cost of a funeral is €4,000, and significantly higher in Dublin. Even without all the trimmings, a funeral costs substantially more than the grant of €850 that the Government is cutting. The director of Massey undertakers said more than 70% of people using its services are currently supported by the grant and suggested the cost of a funeral could be as much as €10,000 in Dublin.

The cut to the invalidity pension means 65-year-old disabled pensioners are facing a cut of €36.80 per week, or €1,914 over the year. Invalidity pension is paid to people with the requisite contributions record who cannot work due to long-term illness or disability. Most will have been receiving illness benefit for the previous year or years. The rate of invalidity pension for the under-65s is €193.50 and for those aged 65 it is currently €230. Therefore, recipients would have anticipated that they would move to the higher rate on reaching the age of 65. The higher rate is discontinued for people who turn 65 from January. Thus, they will have to wait a full year, until they are 66, when their state pension kicks in, to achieve the higher rate. This cut is like the abolition of the State transitionary pension, already provided for by the Government in a previous budget whose provisions also kick in from January. We opposed that also as it will force many 65 year olds into becoming jobseekers for a year. This is a pointless change. The individuals could have been protected and the payment should have been left as it was. It did not cost anything.

Abolishing the telephone allowance will increase fear and isolation among older people. The mobility of older people is often more limited and many live in rural areas. The families of an increasing number have emigrated. Even in this city, they are often isolated and depend on the telephone for communication. Worse, personal alarm pendants depend on the maintenance of a landline.

See this speech in context