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

When I was trying to structure my comments on this wide-ranging Bill, I tried to figure out where to start and where to finish. It is normal for the social welfare Bill that is introduced following a budget to cover many areas. I am mindful of the context in which this legislation is being introduced. Last week, the Government Chief Whip promised to provide adequate time in future for discussions on legislation. The Taoiseach made a similar promise during the Seanad referendum campaign. We were told that all future Bills would have a pre-legislative stage. The Joint Committee on Social Protection is meeting today to consider the general scheme of the proposed gender recognition legislation. It is good that this positive legislation will benefit from a pre-legislative stage. By contrast, the legislation we are dealing with today was published at the last minute - yesterday morning - and we are expected to have read it, understood it and be able to debate every aspect of it in time for this debate. After the Second Stage debate concludes tonight, we will meet tomorrow for a Committee Stage discussion on all the amendments we can muster and those the Minister will propose. Additional amendments are always brought before us when legislation is being rushed in this way. That is not the way to do business.

During the summer, when the Taoiseach was trying to find reasons to abolish the Seanad, he told the public he was genuine about Dáil reform. We were promised that we would be able to deal with legislation in a proper fashion. This is not the way for us to approach a social welfare Bill that affects the public. When it was decided to bring budget day forward to October, we were promised that we would have adequate time to discuss the social welfare and finance Bills prior to their passage and their coming into effect in January. This is another example of a promise that has been broken. We were promised that new legislative stages would be provided for and we were promised that we would be given adequate time. When the budget used to be presented in December, it was traditional for the social welfare legislation to be rushed through before Christmas so that certain social welfare changes could come into being in January. We would deal with other measures that had been announced at a later stage. Even though budget day has been moved back to October, we are rushing this legislation once again. I am keen to make my opposition to this process clear once again. Our feelings on the matter were made known earlier today.

Many low-income groups are being targeted in this legislation. Each of them will feel the impact of these budgetary measures very acutely. The measures in question are being introduced following five austerity budgets, each of which involved the Government putting its hands into the pockets of social welfare recipients and low-paid workers. The little money those people used to have has been removed bit by bit. This budget provides for more of the same. It is appropriate for me to start at the beginning by speaking about the maternity benefit cut. I will work my way from the cradle to the grave before concluding by discussing the substantial changes that are proposed with regard to the bereavement grant. Indeed, the grant is being abolished. There cannot be a more substantial change than that.

For many new mothers, maternity benefit is their only income during their maternity leave. This latest cut to maternity benefit follows the reduction in maternity benefits that came into effect in July of this year, following last year's announcement that the benefit was to be subjected to a Labour Party-imposed tax.

The majority of maternity benefit recipients will see their weekly payments cut by €32. That is a cut of €832 over the course of their six months' leave. For those mothers who are fortunate enough to have the maternity benefit supplemented by their employers, the cumulative impact of this Government's cut and tax measures could shrink their benefits by up to €126, to a payment as low as €135.70, a potential loss, between the tax and the Minister's cuts, of €3,276. That is a substantial reduction for people who are in many cases suffering a loss of income in the first place and who have all the additional expenses that come with a newborn child. Barnardos described the cut to maternity benefit as anti-parenting, callous and unsupportive. It pointed out that Ireland lags behind many EU countries in offering only six months' maternity leave and no paid paternity or parental leave.

This fresh round of cuts will exacerbate the financial pressure on women and force them back to work early. We live in a world that is in many ways enlightened, yet we seem to be going back to the dark ages because we are trying to put cuts in place that will force women to go back to work early, despite the changes made over recent decades. Remarking on the cut to maternity benefit, one person who e-mailed me asked whether the coalition deliberately chose 6 January 2014 for the commencement of the reduction in the rate of maternity benefit since this is the feast of the Epiphany when the Three Wise Men came to visit the new born Jesus, bringing gifts, and not tearing away at the straw in his manger. As Gaeilge that date is Nollaig na mBan. What type of present is the Minister giving pregnant women when she seeks to diminish their protection, their maternity benefit?

Although the Minister did not announce a cut in child benefit this year, the cuts in benefit to the fourth and subsequent children were formally announced last year and will take effect in January. Any parent could tell the Minister that the anguish around this cut is still ripe. In the wake of last week's budget announcement I received much feedback from the public, some of which I will use in my contribution here. One constituent wrote that while the cuts did not directly affect her, she is always concerned for those who are less well off. The Government promised everybody that it was concerned because it said in the programme for Government that it would protect the vulnerable. So much for that promise. My constituent went on to say that "it is despicable that it was announced there were no cuts to child benefit this year when they knew this was coming down the line".

Denial and deception have become the Minister's PR modus operandi. She says it is not a cut, that she is discontinuing one rate and introducing a lower one, that existing recipients are not affected, and that they will simply not get their anticipated increase. It is not a core payment because it is not paid weekly. That was another promise, that the Minister would protect core payments. It is not a cut, the Minister says, it is standardisation. If the Minister is so mortified about making this cut, the answer should not be superficial spin. Instead, she should not make the cuts. There are alternatives. I will return to these.

My constituent pointed to a simple truth that should have informed the Government budgetary approach but clearly did not: "Larger families are being targeted when, by their very nature, they are likely to either have less income because one parent is at home with the children, or higher childcare costs if both parents work". Nothing has been done in this budget or in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill to address that truth.

I turn to the issue of young unemployed people and those who will be employed soon. Section 9 provides for a cut in young people's jobseeker's allowance rates and section 10 provides for a cut in supplementary welfare allowance for those under 26. In another dimension I would welcome the consensus reached in this House over the matter of payment rates for young jobseekers, but regrettably that consensus no longer exists. In budget 2010 Fianna Fáil cut dole payments for those under 25. Fine Gael and the Labour Party voted against the proposal, arguing vociferously, together with Sinn Féin, that it did nothing to address the shortage of jobs, that there were not nearly enough places in education and training and that it would simply drive more people to emigrate. Fast forward to budget 2014 and Fine Gael and the Labour Party are cutting the bill for young jobseekers even further than the Fianna Fáil Party ever contemplated. With Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil argues against the measure it once favoured, finally realising it inflicts extreme hardship. I welcome its conversion on the road to Damascus. It is a pity the Minister and her Government have jumped off that road and are now implementing Fianna Fáil policy.

My party has been the one constant throughout all this betrayal and opportunism. At one time or another, all parties were on the side of Sinn Féin in this argument. I urge the Minister to bow to our shared logic on this point because the cut to young people's jobseeker's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance does nothing to address the shortage of jobs. There are still not nearly enough places in education and training, and this will accelerate the emigration of young people. These cuts are wrong and discriminatory. The Minister believed this once and maybe in her heart of hearts she still believes it but her actions do not reflect what is in her heart. Her spin does not stack up.

This is no balancing act, as the Minister would have us believe, because between the service support and income support, the cut to jobseeker's allowance and to supplementary welfare allowance is in the order of €32 million. The Minister is adding only another €14 million to activation. That leaves a black hole of €18 million. Perhaps the Minister can clarify exactly where that €18 million is going because her own backbenchers and the Fine Gael backbenchers are peddling a lie that €42 or €46 million is available to be invested in activation or in additional activation measures. The Department has confirmed that the €32 million saved from social welfare payments makes up part of its overall budget reduction, part of the overall €229 million that the Government is taking out of the pockets of the least well-off in our society.

The only additional activation provision for young people is a small youth guarantee. How adequate is the funding for this? The National Youth Council of Ireland reckons it represents just 5% of the estimated annual cost of what is needed for a genuine youth guarantee scheme. The council estimates that the cuts will affect 20,853 young jobseekers next year alone. The numbers will grow year on year as people emerge from schools and universities and no jobs are available. This budget guarantees only an extra 3,250 places in education, training and work experience. There are 32 jobseekers for every job vacancy advertised. They are the latest figures. There are 32 people looking for each job that is vacant.

Young people cannot be incentivised into places, paid or otherwise, if those jobs do not exist. There are 18,000 fewer young people in paid employment compared with when this Government took office. There have been around 20,000 unpaid internships under the JobBridge scheme in that time. A sum of €100 in jobseeker's allowance plus €50 as part of JobBridge on a 40 hour week equals €3.75 per hour. Is that the new minimum wage the Labour Party is creating?

This Government is making the implicit assumption that young people's parents will cover their costs, but this is not possible for many either as a consequence of household financial realities or family breakdown. The cut will inflict severe hardship and, in some cases, destitution on young people. A parent's means are taken into account when determining eligibility for jobseeker's allowance for a young person living at home. The payment goes to a young person who is living in a low-income household. The cut will affect the entire household.

Research from the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice demonstrates that the cost of a minimum essential standard of living for a young adult living in the parental home is forecast to rise to €183.99 per week in 2014. The cut in rates of jobseeker's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance leave the payments far short of this. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul draws the obvious conclusion and states that "this will result in further stress, struggling and hardship for low income individuals and families". For others, the cut will cause homelessness. Since the young person's rate was first cut by Fianna Fáil in budget 2010, every homeless service has reported an increase in the number of homeless young people. Focus Ireland estimates that a couple of hundred young people will be pushed into homelessness by the measure this year and makes the point that even short periods of homelessness can have devastating and lifelong consequences for young people. Most homeless hostels charge between €50 and €75 per week. How can a young person or any person for that matter afford this out of a payment of just €100 or even €144? Focus Ireland also argues that the emergency accommodation provided to these young people is expensive to run and costs the taxpayer considerably more than is saved by the reduced rate of the payment.

I understand the Department has invited Focus Ireland to work with it to develop a pilot community employment scheme to meet some of the needs of these young people, and while Focus Ireland welcomes that opportunity, as do I, it has also stated that this project-based response is time-consuming to construct and will only be able to respond to a small number of affected individuals and only in Dublin. There is a need to accelerate the funding for these types of schemes. It should not be a pilot scheme at this stage given what has happened.

I will turn to the other measures in the legislation, in particular those targeting workers. Illness benefit and injury benefit are cut in sections 4 and 7. The number of days without payment is being doubled from three to six. That is a cut of €112.80 and someone will suffer the consequence of it. There is no statutory entitlement to sick pay, which means in some cases the sick person will suffer the loss. The fact that one is sick does not mean one's mortgage and other household outgoings are reduced. If anything, the opposite is the case as utility bills may rise due to the fact that one is housebound in that period. One might need to increase the heating in the house during that period or visit a doctor to get a certificate, which can cost up to €70 in some parts of this city. That is before one pays for medicine. Many employers offer their staff sick pay and this is to be encouraged. In those instances, this cut adds to the costs of employers, many of whom are struggling to retain jobs as it is.

Mortgage interest supplement is being abolished in the absence of effective action to tackle the mortgage arrears crisis. Last year's budget announcement in respect of mortgage interest supplement was extremely disingenuous. Last year, the Minister introduced a rule which prevented people accessing mortgage interest supplement for 12 months. For many struggling families, this was undoubtedly a glimmer of light because they knew that after a year of engaging with the bank, they could possibly rely on the mortgage interest supplement but now, ten months later, the Minister has extinguished that light altogether. The scheme is being abolished in the absence of any other income support for home owners who lose their jobs or in the absence of a substantial increase in social housing. The paltry amount announced in the budget will not address the huge number of people on the housing lists throughout this city and country. It is paltry in the extreme and will not affect all those who face eviction because of repossession due to the ineffective approach of this Government and previous Governments to the mortgage crisis. The policy rationale put forward for abolishing the scheme is that it was always intended to be a short-term support. The rent allowance and rent supplement scheme were supposed to be short-term supports. Will the Minister target them next?

The cut to the invalidity pension for those aged 65 means 65 year old disabled pensioners are looking at a cut of €36.80 per week or €1,914 over the year. Invalidity pension is paid to people with the requisite contributions record who cannot work due to long-term illness or disability. Most will have been receiving illness benefit for the previous year. The rate of invalidity pension for those aged under 65 is €193.50 and currently for those aged 65 it is €230. Recipients would have anticipated that they would move to the higher rate when they reach the age of 65. The higher rate is discontinued, as it is termed, from January for people who turn 65 after that date, so they will have to wait until they are 66 when their State pension kicks in to achieve the higher rate. This cut is like the abolition of the State pension transition already provided for by this Government in a previous budget which kicks in from January. We also opposed that measure as it will force many 65 year olds onto a pointless year of jobseeker's benefit while they wait for their State pension to kick in at 66. I heard what the Minister announced earlier but what she announced is that there will be a reduced jobseeker's payment because a person will not be forced to look for work once they are aged 62 and upwards.

See this speech in context