Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I am delighted Deputy Conlon has conditioned the Minister to listen to people on the Opposition benches. I am pleasantly surprised that he has been present for the entire debate on the Bill. I welcome the fact that this Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill has been introduced. However, I disagree with many of the provisions it contains.

I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Social Protection. When we contact these individuals, they are always courteous, helpful and fair. There are a few exceptions in this regard and I intend to highlight one in a moment. The conditions that obtain in the offices in which those to whom I refer work are Dickensian, to say the least. I saw the queues outside the Department's offices in Gort, Loughrea and Tuam in the past couple of years. The personnel in these offices were obliged to deal with huge numbers of people and administer various schemes while operating in extremely poor conditions.

The language used in the Bill could in large part be classified as jargon. Essentially, it dresses up social welfare cuts in ambiguity. In that context, the Minister referred earlier to incentivising participation in training and education programmes and the programmes provided under the national employment action plan. There has been much discussion to the effect that various Departments should co-ordinate both their business and schemes in order that they will not be pulling against each other. In that context, I wish to read one sentence from a letter one of my constituents received from the community welfare services section, primary care, of the HSE and the Minister's Department. The constituent to whom I refer is a single parent who has three children and who lives in rented accommodation. The letter states, "As you commenced full-time education on 1 October 2009, and as your circumstances do not fall within those specified, I regret to inform you that you are not eligible for the allowance you applied for".

That is the type of message the Department of Social Protection is sending to people while the Minister refers to incentivising them to participate in various programmes. How can he describe the letter sent to my constituent as providing an incentive? The woman to whom I refer was previously employed in Galway city in the Minister's constituency but she lost her job. She tried her best to upskill and pursue further education. Academically, she is in the top rank but she is being denied the opportunity to remain in further education. Another 15 of my constituents outlined similar circumstances to me. These people embarked on courses while anticipating that the financial support they were receiving would be continued. However, that support has been withdrawn. The individuals to whom I refer are due to enter their third year in further education next September but they are being denied the opportunity to do so. Instead of being included, they are being excluded.

Reference was made to social inclusion. This piece of jargon has been uttered by those on the Government benches on numerous occasions in the past 12 months. However, what is being done is anti-social in nature. The Minister is denying those to whom I refer the opportunity to be included on schemes that are designed to allow them to upskill.

I accept that the Minister has only been in the Department for a short time and that the legislation may have been prepared prior to his arrival. I ask that he introduce drastic amendments to it in order that its provisions might be seen as being fair. I know the Minister wants all of the legislation relating to social welfare to be reasonable and fair.

I agree with Deputy Conlon's comments in respect of fraud. However, she also stated that people want to be in permanent employment. There are those among the 450,000 who are currently out of work who will never be employed again. God knows that they and the staff of the Department are aware of this fact. We are being informed that opportunities to upskill and enter further education exist. However, there are many barriers in place in this regard and the higher one goes, the worse it gets in this regard. The Minister can shake his head but that is the reality.

I am sure the people to whom I refer visit the Minister's clinic on a regular basis. He made an appearance at a meeting at which I was in attendance and when I challenged him about people on further education and back to education courses, he stated that I should tell them to come to his clinic and that he would sort matters out for them. The Minister is on the record as having said that.

See this speech in context