Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)

This is my first budget and the imbalance in the debate is striking. The reality is that next year we will spend €20.5 billion on social welfare and there is never any talk about where it comes from except for these dreadful rich people from whom we must take money because they are the bane of society and we all want to be so equal. The way people protest around here is disingenuous because it gives the impression there are those for people and those against them. If we look at the circumstances of the people making those speeches, they are on the same wages as those on this side of the House, aside from the technicalities of the points being debated there.

The idea people are holding hands with the poor is disingenuous. There should be always a debate about social welfare, about where it goes and from where the money to pay for it comes. A lot of what I have heard in the debate is the peddling of misery, scaring people while not having a conversation about what people are entitled to and who pays for it. Often in these debates, we hear something is being taken away but who is paying for it? Most of the time it is the taxpayer but at the moment the IMF is making up the shortfall. These people are not fantastically rich but have worked and worked. There are many of them who feel the social welfare system has been operating in an insane fashion over the years and that it has been open to abuse and exploitation, driving people away from working.

That does not solve the issue of those who really need help. A good social welfare state is a safety net we all might need at some point, we do not know. It seems as though it is unchallenged, that begrudgery, which privately people might consider an Irish trait, is being glorified, particularly begrudgery of the wealthy, whether they inherited their wealth or earned it, or whether they are entrepreneurs or the innovative, the sort of people we would like to think could be confident that they have a place in the country, that they are not being demonised because of their wealth, that they will invest in the country and will not move assets out of it because this is a country where the politicians hold hands with the poor. That is a joke because the poor are not fooled into thinking politicians are holding their hands. We do our best by people but we must have debate not just about their rights, but about their responsibilities to the nation as a citizen.

As the Bill is drafted, the redundancy provision that cuts back from 60% to 15% is a crude instrument. That would mean employers would have to pay 85% of the redundancy. Small, family run businesses have been trading for years and want to hold on until there is an upturn and many of them have been operating without taking any earnings out of the business. They want to hold on to their employees because they have faith in the country that it will lift. Now, their decision is being tilted by the fact that if things do not work out for them and they go to the wall, they must ask how they will meet the payment to employees who have been loyal to them. It is all very well for a multinational or an incorporated entity that can hide behind the corporate veil if it goes insolvent but there should be special provision for the sole trader and for the small business because this is significant for them and thousands of jobs could be lost even as we speak while people weigh up their options on account of this new development. These people do not want to be told to send their employees to the insolvency fund; they want to trade their way out and want to see brighter days but they are being forced to make tough decisions.

Some people claim that if they bring in this quickly, they will not be able to serve redundancy papers but that is a cynical position to put genuine people into when they will not be able to carry the 85% payment. Will they have to remortgage? In many small businesses, the home is the collateral security for debts. Why are we putting these people in this situation to tackle a problem that is higher up the line where we have multinationals who leave the country and we have to pay the redundancy for their staff?

This measure will push employers into letting go employees. Why would I keep an employee for 15 years and incur this burden? I would keep turning over my employees. That is not what we want, we want employees to be treated fairly and employers to have confidence in their employees. This development at a time when businesses are holding on by their fingernails is not welcome and should be looked at to protect the unincorporated small business and sole trader. They do not have the protection of the corporate veil, which in our capitalist society has been highly abused. We see reckless developers who are still fine and who still have their homes because they are protected by the corporate veil while subcontractors who were not protected and who offered personal guarantees to keep businesses operating have gone to the wall. The corporate veil has been abused and I would like to see this classification of person protected and given hope because they are staying in business. They are not getting start up money so they should be given some encouragement.

I made my inquiries in my area and it is very well served by CE schemes, such as the Tidy Towns and the local arts centre. My understanding is that the cut in the materials allowances will have little impact on clerical schemes in offices but in environmental schemes where people need shovels and coats, such as Tidy Towns, and health and safety courses, money is needed. I would welcome a provision whereby there is discretion and organisations that do not need the money do not get it, and those CE schemes that need money get it.

The stopping of double payments will impact on lone parents. For lone parents, a CE scheme is an ideal option. It gives the flexibility to still care for children while an extra income comes in. The problem here for lone parents is child care. I was talking to a French woman who lives here and she told me that in France she would pay €5 a day for child care but she pays €50 a day for a child minder here and she must work. Child care is one of the biggest burdens lone parents must face when finding work. The CE scheme worked well for lone parents but the cancelling of the double payment points to a problem with child care. It is unsatisfactory. We are talking about women and children because normally women are caring for the children and they will be worst affected. We must address the issue, particularly if we want to encourage people to work. It cannot be so prohibitive that people work to pay for child care.

There are many cases where women must pursue the fathers of their children, irrespective of whether they are married to them, for maintenance. There is a general view the State will look after them. Clearly this is not the way to go; there should be a centralised service to pursue these people. In many cases there is money for everything but there is no money to look after the children when the children should be always the priority.

I balance that, however, by saying the way our family law system works is poor and the way unmarried fathers are treated in this country is poor. Much of the legislation serves to emasculate men.

Hand in hand with asking fathers, whether married or unmarried, working or not working, to take on responsibility for their children is also recognising the relationship a child has with his or her father and if possible should have with his or her father. Regardless of who he is or what his background is, this is a right of a child. There has been much talk about the role of fathers but nothing has been done about it. We do a grave injustice to the men of our country and the children of our country. I would like to see considerable reform in that area.

See this speech in context