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

It is not fully reflected in this Bill, which is a pity because if the Minister really believes it is not working she would be introducing a Bill to repeal some of the regressive decisions which have been taken. The social welfare system is not working as a safety net because the gap between rich and poor in our society is growing. That is the gap between the lowest cohort of our society and the richest. Even at a time of recession that gap is increasing. The rich are getting richer at a time of recession. They are benefitting from the chaos and grief of others, as has always been the case. We live in hope that Governments would address that, but they have not done so.

We have been continually told about the high rates of social welfare payments to people in Ireland and we have seen comments from those who are here to dictate to us how to spend Irish taxpayers' money and run the economy. It has also been heard in this Chamber from Government spokespersons that social welfare rates are high. It is trotted out time and again. There seems to be this recurrent theme that if one says something often enough it comes true or, at the very least, will come to mean something. The high rate of payments in Ireland is not fact but merely a straw man argument in the welfare debates. One can make all the crude comparisons one wants with other states in the EU and elsewhere on social welfare payments but the payment is meaningless and the argument is meaningless if one does not have the same purchasing power as other populations for the payment one receives. That is the cost of living argument.

In Ireland the cost of living is astronomical. Children are living in poverty. I have not seen any statistic or analysis to show the cost of living in Ireland has substantially reduced to show any type of justification, if ever there is one, for social welfare cuts. Ireland's place on the list of comparisons is virtually meaningless. We should be looking at purchasing power. I would say if one examined the purchasing power of social welfare payments in Ireland compared to other EU countries we would be near the bottom, not the top. There is nothing generous, to use one of the favourite words, about the social welfare system. I have heard the Minister use the word generous about a system that allows 10% of the children in this country to go without basic provisions. That is not generous in any way.

In all the recent social welfare budgets we have seen changes to allow further clamp-down on social welfare fraud while we do not see legislation that would clamp down on white-collar fraud. Fraud, whether in banks, business or social welfare, should be pursued and I have never argued otherwise but there are degrees of effects and when one considers the effects of some of the banking scandals on Irish society, social welfare fraud is minuscule. That is not to justify it in any way, just in case somebody tries say I am doing so.

I have been an advocate of ensuring there be more social welfare inspectors to ensure there is no abuse of the system but I am concerned that once again - because this Bill was not dealing with it other than the social welfare card - the Minister's presentation announced there would be further changes and what has been termed an "expansion of the penalty rates regime for jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit and supplementary welfare allowance and a measure to enhance powers in the area of overpayments recover". I will wait and see that and we will have that debate on Committee Stage. I am not saying I am opposed to it because I have not seen it yet and sometimes it could be the practical changes that are required to give effect to some of the provisions.

We also need to be careful because we continuously see headlines that all those who were involved in overpayments were involved in fraud, because that is what the fourth estate will do. They will have their headlines such as "€600 million social welfare fraud". The figures are there, and the Minister's Department has shown them, but quite a lot of it is overpayments, some through clerical error, some through mistakes while filling out forms. It is not all fraud. Fraud is when people specifically set out to defraud the system and the Department. We need to make that distinction. Fraud is quite a low element that the Department prosecutes when it can, and it is entitled to recover all the money that has been defrauded from it whereas in terms of overpayment, the Department needs to be careful it does not drive people further into poverty by its pursuit of money it caused the person to get in the first place through it.

Hopefully we will get to address this area on Committee Stage. Of late in social welfare debates the Committee Stage is time limited and we do not get the opportunity to deal with the meat of the provisions and amendments, positive or negative from the Minister or ourselves. That is a pity. Even at this stage the indication is that we will be time-limited to deal with Committee and Report Stages of this Bill.

The Government is happy to create a picture of the deserving poor and present social provision as some kind of charity rather than an entitlement. It should not treat the social welfare system as such.

It is not a benevolent fund, or rather it is a benevolent fund that was created by the PRSI system. Those who are dependent on it now, or those who have gone before them, have paid into this fund and although it may be in deficit at present there have been times when it has been in the black. That is the nature of the social welfare fund, the ciste leasa shoisialta. People have paid in over the years on the understanding they will receive back some of their payments if the unlucky event happens and they become unemployed, sick or dependent in some way on the social welfare system. In the main they have been happy to do so.

That allows me to address one of the points made by the previous speaker in respect of PRSI payments of the self-employed. I hope there will be some type of opt-in mechanism in the next social welfare Bill to allow those who are self-employed to pay a full contribution of 14% or 15% as indicated - in one case the figure was 17%. Whatever the figure may be it should be set and people who wish to opt into this will do so on the understanding they will enjoy the same benefits received by everybody else who pays through their PRSI contribution, added to their employer's contribution. There would not then be the situation whereby many self-employed people who have fallen on hard times, whose companies or businesses have collapsed, are totally dependent on exceptional needs payments, if they are lucky enough to get that much. There should be some kind of safety net eventually, once they have sold off all their assets to justify the payment from the State. It should be established they are unemployable or cannot start up their business again in the future. That is what they must do now to avail of any type of payment.

There has been much discussion about child benefit and changes to same. I have had that discussion before with the Minister and have urged her not to make any changes. I have also questioned the contemplated changes, asking whether it was better to leave the system well enough alone as it is, in spite of the changes and cuts the Minister has already made, whether to go with the proposals contained in the Mangan report, or whether to go with the proposals on child benefit that came from the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. I am adamant I will oppose any other cut to child benefit and I believe the public would also oppose this. The Labour Party in particular will suffer the consequences if it goes down the road of undoing further the promise it made during the election campaign not to cut child benefit. I will not dwell on that aspect of social welfare.

There are many people in extreme poverty, however, for whom this Bill will not do anything, those who find themselves with very little on which to survive. A woman telephoned my office the other day who had €80 for herself and her partner to survive on for the coming three weeks. That is not uncommon. When she had paid all her bills, the mortgage and all other outstanding matters, that is the sum she was left with as a result of the cuts to both her and her partner's wages. There was nothing there for her. She could apply to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which is running out of money because of the huge draw on its resources, or could apply for the exceptional needs payment. However, because her partner is working and that payment is means-tested it is more than likely she would not qualify for it.

Although I welcome that the Minister has seen fit to deal with one parent family payment, she will remember that when we first discussed this, after she had got rid of the existing transitional payment, we argued that this payment should have been left in place. When the change of the qualifying child went from 14 years to seven we argued the Minister needed to reverse and pull back from that change. At the time, the Minister stated there needed to be a proper system of child care in place. In her speech today, the Minister acknowledged that such a system is not yet in place and therefore she would introduce a change. Why will she not simply repeal the section which changed the age qualification for one parent families from 14 to seven years? That would be the easiest way and, at a later date, if the Minister were so minded, she could change the age back when the system of child care we all wish for - the Scandinavian model of child care - is instituted in this State. We do not have it, however, and are not likely to have it in the near future because the necessary investment does not exist. Although what the Minister proposes in this regard is welcome, it goes contrary to everything else she has stated in regard to the social welfare code. She is further complicating that code. Two years ago we had a debate about the single working age payment. At the time the ethos was being dictated by the changes being brought about in Britain and also by the troika. The response was to simplify the code but now the Minister is introducing a new social welfare payment, with all the belts and braces and whatever else attached. I reiterate this is welcome and I do not oppose it. I simply cannot figure out-----

See this speech in context