Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

I believe that any discussion on social welfare must be guided by two principles, namely, fairness and social justice. However, those principles are very much under threat and at times, one can discern the manner in which they have been maligned and that those of us who are guided by principles of justice and fairness are almost perceived to be figures of fun who trot out such cliches. However, across the River Liffey in the constituency of Dublin Central, I can see where they are not cliches because there are plenty of examples of unfairness and injustice. Decisions undoubtedly have been made by the Government - regardless of the intention - arising from which the needy and vulnerable are suffering disproportionately. Again, I note terms such as "vulnerable" and "needy" are almost looked upon scornfully by certain sections of society and in the media. Some people in society are not unduly affected by the cuts. I refer to Members of this House, as well as people in certain positions in State, semi-State and private organisations. They are not unduly affected and the significance in this regard lies in the word, "unduly". Obviously, no one wishes to pay additional taxes, direct or otherwise but one must accept that some people can afford to pay more. This brings one to a fairer system of taxation in which those who earn more pay more. Were the State to have such a fairer system of taxation, it would not be making demands on those who are dependent on social welfare. In part, this pertains to the sacred cow of the 12.5% corporate tax rate. One cannot even consider a slight increase in the rate, which would realise significantly more income. At the very least, one should ensure that the full 12.5% is collected.

Various crises in the country have led to the term, "the new poor". People are now entering the social welfare net who would not have been part of that net until recently and consequently, massive demands are being placed on the services. I consider the main criterion to be that social welfare payments should go where they are most needed and that one should not ask those who are totally dependent on social welfare to face any additional burden in respect of further taxes, be they direct or indirect.

The most significant aspect of the Bill is the targeting of payments to one-parent families. As a result of what is envisaged, such payments will eventually cease when the children involved reach the age of seven years. Like previous speakers, I acknowledge the "Seven is too young" campaign. Has there been much engagement between the Department and organisations which work directly with women and children who are particularly vulnerable or is everything guided by the economics and figures involved? A particular report recommended that seven years was a good age at which to cut this payment and suggested lone parents were stuck in a poverty cycle. It also stated there was a need for incentives to move such parents away from social welfare and towards work. There is a need to respect the rights of lone parents whose choice is to remain at home. They must be supported by means of a social welfare payment which allows them to live in dignity. Comparisons were made with the position in the Nordic countries which have very extensive support systems in place for lone parents who wish to work outside the home. I acknowledge what the Minister said about trying to ensure there would be adequate supports available in this country in time. On the question of where are the jobs for people who wish to move, I do not know whether the JobBridge scheme is going to realise the results for which the Minister is hoping.

We have been informed that some 700,000 people, including 200,000 children, are living in poverty in this country. I acknowledge the work of Social Justice Ireland on this matter. It has produced figures which indicate that those among the poorest 10% of the population have an average disposable income of €210. This compares with an average disposable income of €2,276 for those in the richest 10%. Earlier today the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade discussed the issue of development aid and considered the question of sustainable and shared growth in developing countries in Africa in the context of not increasing the grip of the class system. We need to look to ourselves in the context of this matter. Social Justice Ireland has proposed that we broaden the tax base and eliminate those tax breaks which solely benefit those on the highest incomes.

When one considers lone parents, one is obliged to wonder how representative are the memberships of the Dáil and the Seanad of those in this group. One is also obliged to ask how many officials in the IMF and the ECB are lone parents. I am sure those who are have massive support systems in place and are not obliged to deal with the predicament which many lone parents in this country face. We continue to make allowances for and pay obscene salaries and bonuses to bankers and directors. However, we cannot maintain the lone parent allowance at a level which would allow lone parents to retain an element of dignity in their lives.

Community employment schemes provide services for many lone parents. I hope the review will lead to the schemes being strengthened and the elimination of the fears of many of those on such schemes. Disallowing supports to lone parents entering community employment schemes - I refer, in particular, to some of the very vulnerable women on the schemes in my constituency of Dublin Central - makes a savage statement of discrimination against them and their children. Those to whom I refer need more, not fewer, supports. Such supports must come in the form of realistic opportunities in training and education in order that the women concerned do not end up being exploited within the shadow economy, be it black or grey.

On the pension legislation and the attempts to extend further protection to individuals and families, I wonder whether the Government is going far enough in putting in place stringent regulations to ensure pension funds will have sufficient reserves in order that pensions will be fully protected.

My penultimate point relates to rent supplement and I hope social welfare inspectors will take on board what I have to say. Dublin Central is plagued by rogue landlords who are charging exorbitant rents for accommodation which is both appalling and overcrowded. I hope action can be taken to tackle this matter. I am concerned about tenants who are in receipt of rent supplement and who, through their anti-social behaviour, are causing absolute havoc in communities. It seems local authorities are powerless against these individuals. At least in the context of local authority housing, there are procedures which can be employed by officials to deal with tenants who engage in anti-social behaviour. There is too much happening under the radar in respect of this matter.

Earlier this evening I launched a photo exhibition depicting people who had previously worked on Dublin's docks. Obviously, the men in question are all now well advanced in age. They were employed for all of their working lives on the docks where they engaged in extremely hard work in difficult conditions. They paid their taxes and reared their families and are now dependent on their pensions and social welfare payments. It was heartbreaking to hear men who had worked in appalling conditions on the docks acknowledging that they were afraid that further inroads would be made into their pensions. As I travelled to Leinster House after the launch, I was very conscious of that group of elderly people who were completely dependent on their pensions. They cannot take any more cuts and do not deserve to do so.

See this speech in context