Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for allowing me to speak first as I cannot stay for long.

This is the first time I have scrutinised the budget for social protection, on which I note that expenditure as a proportion of the overall budget stands at 36%, which appears to be high. However, a comparison with figures for other European states shows that they are much higher, standing at 40% or 41%. I do not know what the reason is for the difference, whether it relates to the amounts paid or whether the social welfare budgets of other countries cover more areas. It should be noted, however, that the Irish figure is not high and is lower than the European average.

I welcome the development in pension provision. I was very much part of the protests that developed on this issue. Without wishing to detract from the wonderful work done by the Minister on the issue, we would not be congratulating ourselves on this achievement were it not for the men and women who protested, kicked up a fuss, lobbied and ensured their voices were heard. I am pleased that they will receive their proper entitlements, rather than living under penalties. However, the decision not to do this retrospectively should be reviewed, particularly as the economy is healthy and growing, as the Minister noted. These are the men and women who built the country and the economy. We should provide for retrospective payments far in excess of what is provided for in the document which indicates that the new provisions will kick in on 30 March. I will probably campaign with the same men and women for the restoration of more back money because it is not fair that it will be provided from 30 March onwards.

The Minister has indicated that the youth unemployment rate is falling and that she intends to introduce a new programme of intervention and activation measures for young people. Why are they still being penalised? This is the only cohort of the population which suffered discrimination under austerity that has not had payments restored. I do no understand the reason we continue to penalise young people who are unemployed. No attempt is being made to reverse the cuts they suffered. While there are different categories of young person, their age does not mean that they need less to eat, spend on bus fares or pay rent. Will the Minister to explain the continued penalties imposed on young people?

My secretary who lived on the lone parent's allowance for a long time and is a founding member of the SPARK organisation which the Minister has met many times makes some interesting points about the restoration of the income disregard which is now back up to €130 a week.

The point she makes is that it was €127 in 2009, whereas a basket of goods that could have been purchased for €127 in 2009 now costs €147. There is no genuine restoration of the income disregard which was taken from lone parents during the period of austerity. There is still a big gap to be filled and it should be looked at.

My next point concerns climate change. A stink was kicked up in the Dáil about the need for an extra week's payment for people in fuel poverty and it was very welcome that it was made to them. However, as we will see more of it, there should be a climate change section to deal with the issues that will arise as a result. I argue that, given that the Minister is responsible for employment as well as unemployment issues, we need to look at measures to ensure that, if there is another Storm Emma or Storm Ophelia and workers are told by the Government to stay at home, their employers will pay them. There are tens of thousands of workers who got nothing - zilch - for the two days they were told to stay at home. They stayed at home for health and safety reasons, not because they did not want to be paid. This issue needs to be looked at in employment legislation. All Departments need to look at the impact of climate change but particularly the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.