Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Tá áthas orm an deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an Bhille tábhachtach seo. Nílim ag cur ina choinne, ach tá fadhbanna agam maidir leis an treo a ghlacadh go dtí seo. Tá súil agam, má fhaighim an deis freastal ar an choiste a bheidh ag déileáil leis, go mbeidh mé in ann roinnt leasuithe a chur a ndéileáilfidh leis na buarthaí atá orm agus ar dhaoine eile maidir leis an méid atá sa Bhille san iomlán.

Tá, dar ndóigh, níos mó daoine ag lorg déirce sa chathair. Glacaim ón méid a bhí le rá ag na Teachtaí a labhair romham go bhfuil seo fíor lasmuigh den chathair seo chomh maith. Tá fáthanna le sin. Ceann de na fáthanna ná go bhfuil muid ar fad níos boichte ná mar a bhíomar cúpla bliain ó shin. Fiú nuair a bhíomar ag barr ár réime le linn aimsir an Tíogair Ceilteach, bhí líon mór daoine gafa ag lorg déirce ar na sráideanna toisc go bhfuil ár sochaí míchothrom. Bhí daoine ann le neart sealúchais agus flúirse airgid ach ag an am céanna bhí daoine ar leith gan pingin rua acu agus iad go minic gan dídean. Tharla seo in aineoin an flúirse airgid a bhí sa tír.

Tá fadhb ann maidir leis an reachtaíocht seo a thabhairt isteach ag an am seo, mar go bhfuil i bhfad níos mó daoine thíos de bharr polasaithe an Rialtais le tamall de bhlianta anuas, an dhá bhliain deireanach ach go háirithe. Tá na daoine seo anois ar an ghannchuid agus iad an-bocht de thoradh na polasaithe a ghlacadh le tamall anuas agus de bharr go bhfuil an oiread sin d'airgead an phobail dírithe ar na bancanna agus NAMA in ionad a bheith dírithe ar déileáil le bun fadhbanna ár sochaí nó leis an cheist i dtaobh an fáth go bhfuil na daoine seo bocht sa chéad áit. Feiceann muid agus feicfidh muid níos mó daoine bochta ag braith ar déirce de bharr na cinntí atá glactha ag an Rialtas agus de bharr an treo atá á thógaint aige. Is cuma sa tsioc le haon duine atá thíos chomh mór sin an bhfuil sé nó sí ag briseadh an dlí nó nach bhfuil, mar caithfear maireachtáil. Tá cuid mhaith de na daoine a fheictear ag lorg déirce go mór in ísle brí mar go bhfuil siad ag braith ar an méid a bhfuil mise, aon Teachta nó éinne eile sásta a thabhairt dóibh.

Is fearr liomsa i gcónaí airgead a thabhairt do charthanais seachas é a thabhairt dóibh siúd a bhíonn ag lorg déirce. Ach le tamall de bhlianta anuas, is daoine gairmiúla iad na daoine a bhailíonn airgead do charthanais agus ní théann an t-airgead ar fad chuig an charthanas ach isteach i bpócaí gnónna atá eagraithe chun ach 10% nó 15% den airgead a bhailíonn siad a sheoladh ar aghaidh go dtí an carthanas. Níor díríodh ar an cheist sin sa Bhille seo. The Bill is a missed opportunity. A regulatory impact assessment of the Bill asserts that it is "the only practicable solution to address the levels of anti-social begging activity". In reality, it is not a solution at all. The Bill addresses one part of the problem but it does not address a single one of the many complex causes which give rise to begging.

My party's assessment is shared by many in the human rights, homelessness and poverty sector. The Human Rights Commission held that the legislation will not provide "an effective or humane response to begging and will not be effective in addressing the root causes of begging". The children's charity Barnardos argued that "the legislation alone will not address the problem of begging which stems from the societal failure to care and protect vulnerable people including children". Focus Ireland, which works with the homeless, acknowledges the Bill does not re-criminalise begging per se but rather focuses on "aggressive begging". That reflects arguments made by many others in the sector who deal with those who end up in poverty, begging or are totally dependent on the State for care. Similar arguments have been made by those who work with those who end up in prison, some of whom started off begging in the first place. Focus Ireland also concluded that the Bill will not make any real difference or do any real good. It is a poor message for any government to send out that it will provide for the imprisonment of those involved in begging while on the other hand it will not prosecute those who have screwed the nation of billions.

The Bill provides for imprisonment of up to one month on summary conviction for the relevant offences. Of all the potential responses available, the Government - surprise, surprise - chose to opt for prison. Prison is the most expensive and least cost-effective response available. The Government's regulatory impact assessment asserted that "the implementation of the legislative proposals is expected to give rise to only minimal, if any, additional costs". However, it was also admitted in the assessment that the cost could rise to €1.5 million annually. The average number of convictions in the past for begging amounted to 170 or 180 per annum. The average cost to the public purse of a one month prison stay is more than €8,000. On the basis of past average begging conviction rates, that approach will cost the taxpayer €1.4 million annually.

An important question when considering legislation that could result in imprisonment is whether the money could and should be better spent. I believe it could be better spent. If we are genuinely committed to tackling begging, there are many better avenues through which this money could be spent. The excellent Leanbh service is one such example. Leanbh was established by the ISPCC in 1997 to address child begging in Dublin. It offers an around the clock service to children, young people and parents who are begging or at risk of begging. The ISPCC, like many other charities which provide vital services, has been hit by a fall in donations in the context of the recession. In 2008, total State funding for the ISPCC amounted to €675,000. That puts into context the money that could be required for the Prison Service following the enactment of the Bill.

I encourage the Minister to discuss the Bill with the Minister for Finance and in the context of the imprisonment option to seek funding to assist the Leanbh service to expand to ensure an alternative option is available to imprisonment. One could ask what sort of signal the Bill sends to all those who are down on their luck at the moment. Once again, the Government is all about the big stick. It is more interested in passing the legislation than sorting out the economic crisis which has led to many people ending up on the street. The Government is forcing people into a situation where some will consider begging as the only option.

Dole payments have been cut to unemployed young people, some of whom have large debts, including mortgages. The sum of €100 a week will not go very far, which will force people to consider other options. It is not as if they have the option of finding a job, as no jobs are available for the 500,000 people who are unemployed, especially those who are young and have limited literacy and no skills. I urge the Minister to talk to the Minister for Social Protection to reconsider the ill-advised cut to the dole payments of young people under 22 years of age. Many graduates who qualified in the past month are facing the dole although, when they started their courses of choice, jobs were available for engineers, electricians, teachers and many other professions but those jobs have now dried up. Those graduates are languishing at home or considering the bád bán, the emigration boat. Government policy is forcing people into a situation where they are living in poverty.

Another area over which the Government has a degree of control is the habitual residency condition. Destitution gives rise to begging and through its application of the habitual residency condition the Government has chosen to make people destitute. An increasing number of constituents, including returned Irish citizens, have come to me detailing desperate scenarios of poverty and of being forced to sleep on floors in friends' houses or on the street. All of them had applied for one form or another of social protection but were refused on the basis that they did not qualify under the habitual residency condition which is a requirement for even the most basic emergency welfare payments. This condition, which in practice requires the applicant to be habitually resident in the State for two years in order to be eligible for State support, is making Irish citizens and others who are in this country destitute.

The condition is being used in a blanket manner to exclude many from welfare support. I have brought a number of cases to the attention of the Minister with little success to date. I regret that the Minister has not been able to consider the cases personally and has used the cover of industrial action to avoid giving a reply. By way of parliamentary question, I have asked the Minister to make changes to the habitual residency requirement because it is acting as a barrier for many returned Irish citizens to access the protections they need. To justify the refusal, the Minister for Social Protection stated he is satisfied Irish nationals returning to live in Ireland on a permanent basis should experience no difficulty in demonstrating that they satisfy the requirements of the habitual residency condition.

The Minister is totally out of touch. We might give him some leeway as he is new to the job but the same attitude was demonstrated by the previous Minister and the officials making the determination. There is no reason welfare should be refused to a constituent of mine on the grounds that he does not satisfy the habitual residency requirement because he was born and lived in Derry. That Irishman has not left the island of Ireland for any length of time, yet he is deemed not to be habitually resident and is, therefore, denied social protection. If it were not for the generosity of friends, he would be forced to beg. Unless the condition is examined, a person such as him will end up on the street in the near future.

Another case I am dealing with concerns a woman who is seriously at risk of becoming destitute. She was refused the jobseeker's allowance on the basis that she has not been habitually resident here. She fled England because her 16-year-old son was raped at knife-point. She cut all ties with England and is an Irish citizen born in Ireland. Her only connection with her former home in England is her father. All her other nearest relatives live in Ireland. The family is experiencing severe trauma, trying to set up home once again in Ireland, yet the lady was refused the allowance.

Under the legislation, when determining whether an applicant satisfies the habitual residency requirement social welfare officers are supposed to consider all of the circumstances of each case, including five considerations in particular. These are the length and continuity of residence in the State or in any other particular country; the length and purpose of any absence from the State; the nature and pattern of the person's employment; the person's main centre of interest; and the future intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances. There is either a blanket ban on accepting applicants who meet the habitual residency requirement or the officials are not doing their work in the cases I have highlighted.

I presume many other Deputies have encountered similar cases of people who have been refused some type of social protection, be it because of the habitual residency condition or some other condition. I am concerned the affected people will end up begging on the street and will consequently be threatened by this legislation if the Ministers do not take into account all the reasons people end up begging or destitute in the first instance.

There is concern over organised begging by organised gangs, the parents in which drop off their children in the streets to beg. They should be prosecuted under child abuse legislation or organised crime legislation. The offence should also be prosecutable under truancy laws and addressing it should involve the welfare services. We know that the welfare services in the HSE cannot cope even with part of their workload. It is State failures in this area that have resulted in organised begging on the streets. The problem needs to be addressed but not in the sledge-hammer fashion that this legislation envisages.

It is a pity we have not addressed harassment by companies collecting for charities. Even under this legislation, they will probably still harass us as we walk up and down the street. I refer to organised, big business whereby the companies concerned give a proportion of the money obtained on the streets to a charity. I praise any charity that has volunteers and supporters out trying to obtain money. The form of collection to which I refer is not charity but business and we should put to an end the accosting, sometimes in a harassing fashion, of people who are walking up and down the street.

Other Deputies mentioned the illogical aspect of this Bill, namely, that its intention is to fine people who are begging despite the fact that if one is begging, one does not have the money to pay fines. I guarantee that 90% of people on the streets begging cannot afford any fine, let alone a fine of €400. I ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to re-examine the legislation. There is a loophole because there is no definition of goods and services. It means that anybody with any wit at all will be able to offer in exchange for a charitable donation a piece of paper or an old biro, for example. This is a way around the Bill and it will make it illogical and unworkable.

I am concerned that the Bill does not address begging on the streets in the way it should. The way of doing so is by investing in social protection, literacy and education and by not cutting community services and other services delivering for those who end up destitute. The services should be enhanced in an era during which there will be an increasingly greater call thereon. I urge the Minister to find in the big pot from which he seems to be paying billions to the banks a small portion to be distributed to charitable services, which are addressing and destitution in our city.

See this speech in context