Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I have also spoken to significant numbers of people caught in the trap described by Deputy Lynch. We call it the C2 trap, where people did not appreciate they would not be entitled to welfare benefits if they did not pay PRSI. People did not know this was a cost saving exercise on the part of contractors. Unfortunately these people were not given adequate advice on what they were doing.

This Bill is another example of the Government placing the burden for the economic crisis on the backs of low income families. Poor families throughout the State are paying dearly for this Government's mistakes. The biggest problem is that after 12 years of mismanagement of the economy and social policy, the Government still has not copped on. The entire focus of its reign continues to be on bailing out the banks. It is not just the banks, of course, because the national asset management agency will bail out the speculators as well. Meanwhile, this Bill places the entire burden on low income families.

The Government missed a significant opportunity in the budget to deal with one of the cornerstones that must be put in place if we are to build our way out of this Government-created economic crisis, job retention and job creation. There is little or no mention of it in the budget, which is most unfortunate. Yesterday, there was a change in the number of Ministers of State. Although that is welcome, government reform is not taking place, even at a token level. Ministers and Ministers of State still have up to six civil servants working in their constituency offices, while Ministers have two fully qualified gardaí to drive them around instead of those gardaí being out on the beat or engaged in crime detection and prevention.

I could continue on that issue but I wish to focus on the features of this Bill that cause me considerable concern. The first is the rent supplement, which is to be reduced by approximately 8%. That will create extreme hardship for low income families. The Government says this cut is aimed at reducing the cost of rent. If the Government wishes to reduce rents, there are other ways of doing so, such as through legislative or regulatory reform. It is not necessary to cut the rent supplement to people who cannot afford the full rent for the house in which they are living. My concern is that the reduction in rent supplement will result in additional under-the-table payments. Every Member knows, as do the community welfare officers, that almost everybody in receipt of rent supplement is making under-the-table payments to the landlord. Otherwise, the landlords would not tolerate them. I am worried because the under-the-table payment will increase due to this capping of the rent supplement.

There is also the issue of people who have been told they qualify for rent supplement being unable to move into the property because they do not have the deposit being sought by the landlord. A number of local authorities have stopped paying deposits to landlords on behalf of people approved for rent supplement. This causes huge problems because community welfare officers will not pay deposits either. I have a suggestion which the Minister might discuss with her colleagues. I have no wish to see local authorities or community welfare officers paying such deposits to landlords as I do not believe public money should lie in a landlord's bank account. However, perhaps a letter of comfort could be given by the local authority. It could state that in the event of a default or where the tenant moves on and the deposit is required, the local authority would make the payment. That is a more efficient way of dealing with the matter than what is happening at present.

I received a letter this morning from a constituent. She tells me that, to her horror, what she describes as our reverend masters - I believe she is referring to the Minister and the Government - have decided in their wisdom to deprive the elderly of their guardian angels, namely, personal alarms. She says she is not asking for this service to be restored, but demanding it. She asks me what I will do about it and tells me to answer immediately. She signs herself as Nuala Early, secretary of Drogheda Senior Citizens Interest Group. Nuala is a very straight talking person

She probably thinks the decision will be overturned because this Government, and it is the one thing I admire about it, has the capacity to do U-turns. We have seen how that happens. Issues are teased out in the Chamber, a few Government backbenchers huddle in the Dáil bar, contact the Minister and, lo and behold, a U-turn takes places. We have seen this happen on a significant number of occasions. I hope there will be a U-turn in respect of the €2.5 million scheme, which provides old people with additional locks on their doors and alarm pendants. I hope the Government will restore that miserly sum for the benefit of these people. Approximately 10,000 people were benefiting from the scheme annually. It is a significant and laudable scheme.

I mentioned Government backbenchers but I should have mentioned the Green Party. I must say I am quite jealous of Fianna Fáil being in Government with the Green Party. I would love to be in Government with the Green Party because it is a cake walk, a gift. The party is a walkover on every issue that arises. Fair play to the Fianna Fáil side of the Government for getting away with it.

Section 5 of the Bill refers to putting in place a system that will require recipients of jobseeker's allowance to participate in a course. I am a little concerned about that and am anxious to hear the Minister explain it. Does that mean the jobseeker will lose his or her benefit if he or she does not participate on the course? Is it aimed at young people only or at all age groups? Will additional courses be put in place? If I were in that category, I would not be attracted to many of the courses currently available through FÁS. I received representations about this during the week. A constituent told me he had been seeking a course in FÁS and had applied a number of times. On two occasions he was told he could not get the course because, as there were not enough participants for the course, FÁS could not run it. FÁS needs to examine how it is presenting these courses and the nature of the courses. Some work must be done in that area.

The back to education scheme is welcome. There is a reduction in the amount of time a person must be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance to qualify for it. However, there is a difficulty in that it does not cover a person who wishes to do a master's degree. I received a representation this week on this issue. The young man had been in a reasonably senior management position with a local business that unfortunately had to make him and a number of other employees redundant. He wishes to go back to college to do a master's degree but that is not covered in the back to education allowance scheme. It is people in that category whom the Minister should want to benefit from the back to education scheme. These are people who wish to upskill themselves and be prepared for the upturn when it will inevitably come, although that probably will be after a change of Government. Nevertheless, we need such people on such courses now. I am surprised it is not provided for in the Bill.

With regard to carer's allowance, I am aware of cases where people are appealing the decisions on their applications for the allowance. The authorities are currently processing appeals that date from December. There is a four month overhang for appeals. Everybody knows that carers provide a significant saving for the State because people who are being cared for are not in nursing homes. Keeping them in their own homes is more beneficial. I hope something can be done to shorten the backlog.

See this speech in context