Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

One obtains an understanding of circumstances at that level that one cannot read about or research. One cannot have the information imparted to one in any other way.

I had a quick glance through the four year plan and noticed that many of the provisions of a punitive nature are to come into effect in 2012 and the year thereafter. It is like a boomerang in that it comes back and hits one more than once. I was wondering why the Opposition was being encouraged to vote for the budget and year one of the four year plan. I now know. It could have implications for all of us.

The Minister stated, "In the past 12 years, we have increased pension rates by about 120%, unemployment benefits by almost 130% and child benefit by 330%", the theory being that when we had the money we spent it. I am not so sure what the Minister was trying to say. Was he saying that while the Government gave the people money in the good days, it will take it back from them in the bad days? That is what it sounds like and what it means to the people who are facing this dubious prospect. It is not in the good days that people need money but in the bad days. We will soon find out the truth when we start knocking on doors around the country. Knock on doors we will do.

The Minister stated: "In a continuation of the trend of recent years, and as a re-affirmation of the Government's commitment to all those in need of support, €20.9 billion will be spent by the Government in 2010 on social welfare provision - €500 million or 2.45% more than 2009." That does not address in any way the fact that the demand on the Department is much higher than it was heretofore. The Minister continually says, in reply to parliamentary questions, that the number of social welfare appeals of one kind or another has increased by 45%. This is the case simply because there are more people unemployed. While it is understandable that more people are unemployed, how could it be that more appellants are ill? It could not be possible that there is more illness; the only conclusion one can come to is that the manner in which the cases are being processed is such that more regard is had to the availability of funds than to the actual needs of the people concerned. That is a very dangerous place to go and I have said so to the Minister at meetings of the committee.

The Minister stated recently that many pensioners are very wealthy. I do not know how he came to that conclusion. Anybody working at the coalface will know that, in recent years, many people who retired and who had invested their savings in what turned out to be very dubious investment products, lost everything. I do not know whether people realise this but it is a fact. My constituency colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, who is sitting opposite me, knows this full well. I cannot understand why the Minister made his comment on pensioners. Was it to aggravate them? It certainly was not to reassure them. It caused them great anxiety at a time when they feel vulnerable.

The theory is that there will be no cuts to the old age pension in the current year. From what I can gather from the hidden agenda in the four year plan, the plan will not expire without a negative visitation upon pensioners. When the Minister concluded that pensioners are rich, he made no reference whatsoever to the fact that, some years ago before a general election, the then Government, which was 95% the same as the current one, decided to award free medical cards to all those over 70, whether they were rich, poor or otherwise. I do not know why. Was this a sweetener for election purposes? Irrespective of what it meant, the measure was withdrawn afterwards. Not only do pensioners no longer have free medical cards, in many cases they do not qualify for a medical card at all. Many others are in a similar position.

It is all very fine to talk about what the Government did in the good times and to claim credit for it. We must realise we are no longer in the good times. The reason for social protection - the term "social protection" implies this - is to have a stable payment upon which people can rely in bad times, when circumstances are not so secure, when the horizon is not so bright and when a vision of the future is not so stable.

I have noted all the payments that will be targeted. They include child benefit, which has been open to attack for years. Everybody asks about millionaires. What have they to do with it? There is no need for a millionaire to draw child benefit in the first instance but there is a very genuine need for those who depend on the benefit to draw it. Many households in this country depend on child benefit to pay the mortgage. If we believe circumstances are bad now, we must realise that after three of the four years encompassed in the four year plan have expired, we will recognise the need for child benefit in a big way. I predict that before the period encompassed by the four year plan has expired, somebody will have to revisit the social welfare code and increase child benefit to a level not seen before. Otherwise, as I know from my constituency work, it will not be possible for some families to survive.

Punitive elements, as anticipated at all levels, multiply the negative impact on the household. For example, many unemployed people are living in houses that are in negative equity. They have cantilevered mortgages. After six months, or a year or more in some cases, these unemployed people fall behind significantly in their repayments. Those unfortunate people are very concerned. We are dealing with them now and, if not, we should be. It is not a question of how they got into such circumstances or of saying it was their fault because it was not their fault. They were encouraged to go down the road they went down and told to get on the property ladder. They were told to do something for themselves and they did so. Now they are paying for it.

Prior to an election some years ago, there was a headline in one of the newspapers stating that it was payback time. Unfortunately, it is payback time for many of the people to whom I refer who are suffering. It is very easy for us to say funds and resources are limited and that we must cut the cloth according to measure. The fact of the matter is that it is no consolation to those people.

When we try to intervene with the mortgage providers, we do not receive a very positive response. In the past week, I experienced a case in which a mortgage provider asked the mortgage holder whether his house was in negative equity and whether it could be sold. In other words, he was told that if he could not pay, if his house was not in negative equity and if the bank could get its money back, he should sell it and get out on the road. That is harsh reality of life as it is now unfolding. We, as public representatives elected to the national Parliament, have a duty to ensure people are not pushed to the wayside. If we do not do this duty, we are letting society down. The Minister responsible for social welfare, whoever he may be, irrespective of whether he calls himself "the Minister for Social Protection" or "the Minister for Social Destruction",-----

See this speech in context