Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)

I find it beyond ironic that this measure is entitled the Social Welfare Bill. If words were to mean anything it should be renamed the social hardship Bill. It is all the more reprehensible that a Minister who, it seems to me, has made it her personal crusade to target people on welfare and accuse them of making lifestyle choices, is the same Minister - and one of a cohort in this Government - who has chosen to pay €128,000 to her special adviser. That is some lifestyle choice for the person concerned. The absolute hypocrisy, inconsistency and double standard is there for all to see. This is about people, not ideology. It is about people literally getting by daily and weekly. Nobody on welfare payments is living a champagne lifestyle. Lone parent families do not do it, and neither do pensioners or jobseekers.

If it is worth mentioning that €21 billion is spent on the welfare budget, it is equally worth saying that we have an unemployment rate of 14.5%, and no sign of it falling. It is also worth saying that we live in a State that historically and in contemporary terms is deeply inequitable. Whole communities in cities and towns across the State have histories of intergenerational poverty and deprivation. Those are the facts. It is also worth saying to a Government that is supposed to be listening, that some children are going to school with hungry bellies and sometimes live in mouldy, damp, cold flats. That is certainly a reality in the constituency I represent in the north inner city of Dublin.

The Minister says she is listening, well she should listen to this. On Wednesday night at 11 o'clock a man telephoned my office. He was from Cork and had been a trade union man and a Labour voter all his life. He was crying because his wife, who is due to retire at the end of next year, had discovered that her pension expectation under the Minister's legislation would be cut by €29.80. By introducing the additional PRSI bands to the contributory State pension, the Minister has in effect cut this woman's expected pension entitlement by just under 15%. That is her story, so I hope the Minister is listening to it.

The Minister's budget fact sheet claims that pensions will not be touched, but they have been. It seems astonishing that in the changes she has made, it has not occurred to the Minister that this measure, in particular, is very anti-woman. The Minister talked about this choice with reference to international comparisons and equity. She says she wants to align the rate of pension paid with the contribution made, which may be all very well in theory, but what is she saying to women who chose to work part-time because they were raising a family? Is the Minister saying that their contribution is valueless and worthless?

Since I only have a short time left, I will focus on the changes and cuts to community employment schemes. I was in my constituency this evening in Buckingham Street where they were lighting the Christmas tree, although there was not a lot of Christmas cheer. The community employment schemes that employ huge numbers of people, not just in my area but across the State, are about to be wiped out by the decisions the Minister is taking.

See this speech in context