Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Táimid ag déileáil leis an Bhille Leasa Shóisialaigh agus Pinsean nach bhfuil mórán cosanta breise dóibh siúd atá ag brath go huile is go hiomlán ar aisíocaíochtaí as an PRSI a d'íoc siad thar na blianta, nó a d'íoc a sinsir de thairbhe ar an gcruachás ina bhfuil siad anois le cúig bliana anuas agus roinnt acu fiú roimhe sin. Tá siad sa chruachás sin de thairbhe gur theip ar an Rialtas seo agus ar an Rialtas deireanach déileáil leis an gcruachás go hiomlán sa bhealach gur chóir agus a bhí leagtha amach ag mórán daoine, go raibh a mhalairt de threo ann seachas ciorruithe i ndiaidh ciorruithe agus airgead a chur isteach sa phota mhór ina bhfuil poll ina bhonn go bhfuil sé imithe orainn.

Dá bhrí sin, agus de bhrí an chruacháis ina bhfuil níos mó is níos mó daoine gafa sa chóras leasa shóisialta, tá sé chomh híseal sin anois d'fhir agus do mhná óga nach bhfuil ach an bád bán rompu. Is trua nach bhfuilimid ag déanamh aisghairme ar an athrú a rinneadh maidir leo siúd faoi 25 agus 21 bliain d'aois atá anois ar liúntas cuardaitheora Poist nó sochar cuardaitheora poist. Sin ceann de na príomhchúiseanna go bhfuil 300,000 daoine, daoine óga don chuid is mó, tar éis Éire a fhágáil. Tá na scileanna, oideachas agus fuinneamh a bhí acu caillte orainn mar thír, an áit gur chóir go mbeidís inti agus na tréithe sin in úsáid ar mhaithe leis an tír seachas tír éigin eile timpeall an domhain ag baint tairbhe as córas oideachais na hÉireann, agus nach bhfuilimid ag fáil filleadh ó thaobh an infheistithe a rinne an Stát iontu le blianta.

There are some welcome provisions in this Bill, to which I will revert, and I acknowledge that progress has been made. I have been critical of most social welfare Bills since this Minister has been in office, as well as those of the previous Administration, but I welcome positive changes when they are made. On this occasion, however, I am critical of the fact that there are not enough changes. Retrograde decisions taken in the past have not been sufficiently rowed back on. It is utterly meaningless to be tinkering at the edges of the system where those in need and dependent on social welfare are concerned. We should be dealing with the problems of those in abject poverty due to the cuts in social welfare structures in recent years.

In addition, the cost of living has not dropped substantially. In fact, it is continuously rising in some respects when one takes into account the cost of rents, electricity and travel. There has been a whole range of increases, all of which target the poorest people in society. Those who have less disposable income are hit hardest by the changes and increases, many of which are within the gift of the Government to limit or control.

On top of that, there have been a series of social welfare cuts. The Minister has been at pains to claim that there have not been cuts to social welfare rates, but I have repeatedly shown that there have been such cuts. There have been quite a number in recent years, but since this Government came to office there have been some more. One of the latest cuts was to the jobseeker's benefit, for example. It is a cut if one changes the eligibility for jobseeker's benefit from 12 to nine months. At the end of that period, one goes into a means-tested jobseeker's allowance payment. A person's partner could be working, so the applicant no longer qualifies for that allowance. That amounts to a cut of three months in a person's jobseeker's benefit. Such changes may not be presented as cuts by the Minister, but the people affected know well that they are cuts.

My biggest problem with this Government is that it came into being on the back of promises it made to the electorate that it would be different. In fact, however, it has enthusiastically followed the lead that was given by the previous Government in terms of social welfare. The Government has become a cheerleader for some of those social welfare cuts.

Like other social welfare legislation before now, the Bill before us approaches matters in an ad hoc and piecemeal manner. We come across such Bills on occasion. They are tidying-up Bills which deal with miscellaneous provisions and the little bits that are missed because the social welfare code is so complex. When one change is made, sometimes there can be unforeseen consequences, some of which are reflected here today. Some of the changes are positive and welcome because they address anomalies that come to light when people engage with the system. For example, unforeseen circumstances can be spotted, so there are occasions when miscellaneous provisions Bills are welcome.

While accepting the Bill before us, I find it difficult to understand why there is such a rush. This Bill was produced a week ago, and when we return after the break, it is expected that Committee and Remaining Stages will be held on one day in the House. I have not seen anything so far that is urgent.

The people who would be affected by the changes would welcome their passage as quickly as possible, but sometimes we need to be careful we do not breach our own rules or conventions on legislative processes. Sometime we need to have the gaps between the stages to allow us to put amendments, contemplate further or get some of the information back from those who are affected. Often those in the Citizens Information Board, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, various other groups and our clinics deal with the peculiarities of our social welfare system day in and day out and might be able to spot something that needs to be changed. That is why there are supposed to be at least two weeks between each Stage. Perhaps when the Minister is concluding she could explain the reason for the urgency. If there is urgency, so be it. Deputy O'Dea mentioned the pension changes. If there was an urgency in the pension changes then the urgency relates to the Waterford Crystal case but this Bill does not deal with that, so that urgency which sometimes pertains to court cases or court judgements does not exist in this instance. I will not labour that point.

Social welfare payments should be designed to prevent poverty and also need to be sufficient and adequate in terms of the prevailing standards and costs of living. Lately that ethos has been wholly disregarded. That argument would be made that we have to live within the confines of what we are producing but one also has to be mindful of the effects one has on the weakest and most vulnerable in society. That was a laudable proposal during the election campaign by the parties in Government, that they would protect the most vulnerable. It was in the programme for Government, but their actions afterwards undermined that provision. Perhaps now that the Minister has come back to the left and decided to embrace the fact that austerity is not working, she might be able to persuade the rest of her Cabinet that austerity is not working and cannot work.

See this speech in context