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

My point is that the simple way to address the problem was to reverse the change the Minister had made in budget 2012. That would have been much simpler than putting in a complicated scheme which, I am led to believe, in some cases could end up leaving women in a worse situation than they are in at present.

The Minister has acknowledged that the comprehensive system we need is not in place. I will table an amendment to that effect and I urge the Minister to reverse the change she made in 2012. One might describe this as cover because the new scheme applies only to those who already qualify; it does not apply to anybody who has qualified for the one parent family payment since the change made in 2012. As far as I can work it out, it only goes to those already in the scheme but I will look at it further. It is a reducing number in order that this payment will disappear quickly enough unless the women concerned, who are already in payment, have more children. The payment is a reducing transitional one. I hope I am wrong and that this is not a piece of trickery.

The changes I welcome are similar to those made to jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance. I have asked the Minister to look at this issue on a number of occasions and I acknowledge she has dealt with it as it relates to the retained firefighters. That has been welcomed and we hope it will work to address a problem that had been about to cause mayhem in fire services around the country had social welfare inspectors been intent on sticking to the letter of the law, as they saw it. At least now the letter of the law will allow them to make allowance for retained firefighters. What will happen to those who were refused and have made an appeal? Will this change reinstate the payment to date from the original date of their appeal, or will they have to reapply following the passage of this Bill into law?

I will first respond briefly to some of the general comments the Minister made. I welcome her statement that we need to look beyond austerity. Her words echo statements made in recent weeks by senior figures in the European Union and reflect a long overdue acknowledgement that the disastrous policy pursued for the past five years by this Government, the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government, the European Central Bank, the European Commission and governments across Europe has failed. It is now recognised that we cannot resolve the current crisis through a policy of crippling austerity that is aimed primarily at forcing the cost of the bank bailout onto ordinary citizens and must instead move in a different direction. The trick, however, in moving beyond austerity, is to make the shift from words to deeds. As the Minister pointed out when she discussed her brief, there is something of a contradiction between saying we need to move beyond austerity and continuing to adhere to the debt and deficit targets the troika has imposed on us and which require her to impose further cuts in the forthcoming budget.

I note the European Commission stated this morning that the Government must not waver from its commitment to remove a further €5 billion from the economy in the next two years. To date, the Government has made clear it will not waver from this commitment. I shudder to think what this means. Whether one believes, as the Minister does, that the adjustments and cuts that have been imposed over the past five years are necessary or whether one believes, as I do, that they are unnecessary and wrong, we all accept they have been cruel and have caused hurt and suffering. People are close to the end of their tether in terms of the cuts in income they can endure. I suspect that people across society, especially the vulnerable who depend on social welfare payments, shudder to think where the Government will find further savings in the forthcoming budget beyond what is in the Bill. I do not know how the Government will find the savings without causing suffering to people who have suffered enough. It is contradictory to state that austerity has ended and we need to move beyond it while at the same time recommitting oneself to imposing cuts of billions of euro in the forthcoming budget.

I note the Minister's statement that the Government's key commitment is to jobs. We all agree that growth and jobs offer the way out of the contradiction between the desire to move beyond austerity and demands to meet debt and deficit targets. It is, however, difficult to reconcile these two imperatives. I do not see how one can take a further €5 billion out of the economy without causing further job losses. I hope the Government is not impressed by figures showing that unemployment has declined from 14.6% to 13.7% since the Government came to office. Many of the jobs lost during the period in question were full-time, permanent positions, including in the public sector, which have been replaced by part-time jobs. Moreover, the decline in the unemployment rate can almost certainly be explained by the high level of emigration during the period in question. The reality, therefore, is that little of substance is taking place in the area of job creation.

In setting out her commitment to job creation, the Minister cited a figure of €1 billion to be spent on education and training. This funding is welcome and desperately needed as we try to reposition and reorient the economy and encourage the unemployed to prepare for the new work opportunities we hope will materialise, even if there are few signs that this is happening. I note in passing that there is also a contradiction between making a commitment to re-education and training in one area, and I accept the Department of Social Protection is spending money in this area, when cuts being imposed by the Department of Education and Skills in the further education sector will significantly and adversely impact on the training and education available to the very groups on which we know we must focus if we are to help them out of unemployment. Further education, as we know, is the sector that caters most for people in disadvantaged areas who are unable to access or do as well in the mainstream education system. It has done well in filling a gap through the provision of education and training to sections of the population which have not prospered in the mainstream education system. However, the sector is under attack and its educational offering will be significantly reduced as a result of the decision to increase the pupil-staff ratio in further education colleges. It is campaigning hard against retrograde cuts which will undermine the critical imperative to provide education and training to people who need it if they are to get out of the unemployment disaster that has struck us.

It is unfortunate that the Minister continues to repeat the claim that the Government has not touched core social welfare rates. Let us at least be honest about what has taken place. Everybody who receives a social welfare payment has taken a significant hit in recent years arising from the budget cuts the Government has imposed. Playing around with semantics about core social welfare rates is disingenuous. Cuts to the rent and fuel allowances, lone parent payment, child benefit, school clothing and respite care grants and many other payments have caused suffering and constitute real cuts in the income on which some of the vulnerable sections of society must live. The Department acknowledges this in its assessment of the main welfare and taxation measures in the 2013 budget. According to the document, which is published on the Department's website: "Households worst affected by the measures are those with children, in particular lone parent families." The Department acknowledges that the most vulnerable sections of society have been adversely affected by the social welfare cuts it has imposed.

I propose to raise an issue that should be addressed in the Bill. The Minister may not be aware of it as I have not raised it previously. A couple in my constituency contacted me recently to discuss a decision to reduce significantly their jobseeker's payments.

This decision was taken after the Department of Social Protection inquired as to how this man and his wife are paying their mortgage, which is currently in distress. The man had been working but, like many others, he lost his job and could not afford to pay his mortgage. When asked how he was meeting his mortgage repayments, he openly and honestly replied that his children had loaned him some money in order that he might try to do so. He also informed the Department that he is attempting to obtain employment on a daily basis and that in the meantime - and because he does not want to fall behind with his repayments - his children, who are working, have agreed to lend him some money in order to pay off the mortgage. When this emerged, the Department cut his and his wife's payments by €65 per week. This was in direct proportion to the amount of assistance they received from their children, which is disgraceful.

If one cannot pay one's mortgage and one approaches the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for and receives financial assistance, this is not taken into account by the Department. However, because one's children help one out of a hole, one is penalised. This is not extra income one is hiding or using in order to lead a better life, it is, rather, money one is using to pay off one's mortgage rather than allowing it to fall further into distress. If people cannot repay their mortgages, there are consequences for the banks and, ultimately, the taxpayer. This is a matter to which the Minister should give consideration because what happened in this instance was unfair.

See this speech in context