John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)

I am deeply disturbed and bitterly disappointed by some aspects of this Bill. I followed the Minister, Deputy Burton, very closely when she was in opposition and was always convinced she believed in justice and fair play and would fight for the less well-off in society against the horrendous attacks made on them by the previous Government. However, this legislation does not bode well for the body politic, particularly for those who hoped for a change whereby the Minister would do what she said she would do.

Once again the influence of the EU and IMF is evident in this legislation in the insistence that its provisions are necessary in order to honour commitments made to them. Having said that, I have always said I would acknowledge where the Government has taken positive action. The restoration of the national minimum wage to its previous level is to be welcomed. It was a mean and calculating act of the last Government to reduce the minimum wage, representing an easy attack on those in society who are largely defenceless. Many people earning the minimum wage do not have the back-up of the large trade unions, the main political parties or of Catholic Church, which abandoned everybody during the debacle with the banks. It is down to a few of us on the left to stand up for the less well-off, and we do so every day of the week in the constituencies we represent.

My main concern regarding this measure is that the restoration of the minimum wage should not act as a new floor level for low income workers, thus increasing existing income inequality. The danger is that management will see it as a way of reducing trade union and other rates to the level of the minimum wage. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that an attempt will be made in this regard and that this issue will continue to be raised on the floor of the House in the coming years.

Under the provisions of the Bill social welfare claimants will be required to provide additional information and there will be tougher sanctions for illegal use of public service cards. Why is there this attitude that we must make it increasingly difficult for people to claim social welfare? This has always been the way with successive Governments. I regularly meet people who have worked for 30 or 40 years - the Waterford Glass workers among them - and who experience great difficulty in accessing welfare benefits. People who depend on social welfare are not in that situation by choice. Any person on social welfare will say categorically that they would prefer to have a job. We are talking about decent, ordinary human beings who have spent a lifetime working but are put through the wringer in order to claim their couple of hundred euro every week. It is disgusting and obnoxious. I seem to recall the Minister speaking about this issue some years ago in the Dáil when she was in opposition. Some people - not all, but certainly some - are being humiliated and treated with disdain when they apply for social welfare. Not only that but they must wait two or three months before they receive payment. It is horrendous treatment.

The proposal to increase the retirement age is another attack on the less well-off in society. We are told that we are all now living longer and healthier lives, but there is little evidence that there are sufficient jobs for everybody who wishes to keep working. This policy is not about choices but about cutting costs and making the poorest pay the highest price. The Minister must realise this if she thinks about how the measures in this Bill will play out in the coming years. Are we to ask people to work until they drop? Will we force people who have done a lifetime of toil on building sites, on farms or in factories, working eight hours a day, 40 hours a week, often engaged in shift work, to work until they are 67 or 68? That is completely unacceptable to most people, particularly the workers facing into it.

We must establish the right to a decent period of retirement for those who have worked hard and long. The first step in this regard is to reduce the health inequalities between rich and poor. We must create a fairer job market for older people. Failure to do so will force millions of older people, many of them relatively poor and with a lower life expectancy, to work for longer, while ensuring more young people are trapped for another year or two in an unemployment limbo. I ask the Minister to consider these proposals carefully. I agreed with much of what she said when she spoke on this side of the House about justice and fair play. She stood up in opposition for those who are less well off. Will she reconsider the measure to oblige people to work until they are 67 or 68? It is completely unacceptable.

See this speech in context