Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)

In 1990 I was forced to rely on social welfare in order to survive. The worst part of that experience was the constant digs and nagging from the Minister of the time and from politicians, telling people who were on social welfare that they were somewhat useless, not in so many words but, believe me, when I was on it, listening to what they were saying about people on welfare, I pretty much felt useless as all the important people in the country were telling me I was useless because I was on the dole. That does not encourage anyone to try to get a job. If the Minister thinks this method of beating people over the head because they are on the dole will get them off the dole, she is wrong. I have said it before in this House, it is the equivalent of a mother in Africa hitting a slap on her child for not eating its dinner even though there is no food. No matter how many times the child is hit, there is nothing to eat. There is nothing these people on the dole can do because there are no jobs.

The Minister talks about headline rates, but what exactly are they? Are they the rates that people see who do not read too deeply into what is happening? What difference does it make to people on social welfare when the Minister says she did not cut headline rates, but their fuel and rent allowances were cut?

Given that this is all about political spin, I have a suggestion for the Minister. Why did she not put social welfare up by 1 cent and cut the rent and fuel allowances? The Minister could then have got a headline which said: "Social welfare rates have risen under this Government. Aren't we wonderful?" That is the way the Government works.

When I heard that amendments would be tabled to this Bill I thought it was brilliant because people like single parents were being listened to. I met them last week and I was impressed by their phenomenally good argument as to why the Minister should not do what she is planning to do. For a start, this measure does not save the Government at all; in fact, it just discourages people from working. There are no jobs for these people to take up in the first place. Without child care, how can they afford to take up a job if it comes their way?

I met yesterday with a group of people on one of these new wonderful courses the Minister has put them on. I asked them if they would be on such a course if they had not been forced to do it, and they said they would not. They felt it was an utter waste of time. The person who was giving the course told me they had to make it up as they went along, but they did it because it reduced numbers on the dole. It may have looked good for the Government but what good did it do for those on the courses? What good will it do for someone who is doing a brilliant job of minding their child at home if they are forced onto a course that is not worth a damn or into a job that does not exist? This does not make any sense whatsoever.

The Minister said that we might get some kind of Scandinavian world-class child care system but I did not think she would do it for a second because it is not possible. At a meeting today, one of the Minister's party colleagues, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, said we are starting from a very low base. We are starting from such a low base that this cannot happen within the timeframe the Minister is proposing. She will not only force people to send their children out on the street at the age of seven - although people will not do that - but she is raising their hopes about something that will not happen. If it is not going to happen, it is irresponsible of the Minister to say it will. It has taken the Scandinavian countries decades to get this right, so I do not think the Minister will solve it in 18 months. It is not possible.

If the Minister really wants to help on social welfare, she should try to create some jobs. She should also put in place a decent child care system which people can afford. Instead, however, the Minister is creating circumstances whereby many community facilities are closing down. She is travelling in the opposite direction to the promises she has made. It is not on. She is supposed to be the Minister for Social Protection, not - to steal Deputy Wallace's quote - the Minister for social destruction.

See this speech in context