Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have listened to the contributions from the Minister and other Members opposite. A number of things have been said about the protection of income and of basic rates in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. The income of the elderly has been cut substantially over the past two years and it has also happened this year.

On the cut to the telephone line rental allowance, the line that has been given out is that the technology has moved on somewhat and the number of people depending on landlines has decreased considerably as they move on to mobile phones. That is fine for those living in urban areas with full mobile phone coverage, but people in isolated rural places have been screaming to get mobile phone coverage in recent years. Owing to the geography of parts of my constituency and elsewhere, on this day last year some people had difficulty getting access to Saorview to get television coverage. A huge amount of money was expended to ensure television signals were beamed into them.

Many elderly people are living on their own, possibly because their families have moved into cities and towns. The local provincial newspapers constantly report on rural crime and recommend that we should be more vigilant and watch out for our elderly neighbours. One elderly gentleman came to my clinic on Monday morning with a bill for almost €500 for the particular phone-based security system he selected. A cut to the phone allowance is unacceptable. It would be better to state the facts, which are that this is a simple and straightforward cut in their income. We need to ensure the truth is being told.

Another area of concern is the cut in the bereavement grant. As Deputies, we often deal with people who are bereaved, as there is considerable paperwork when a spouse or other family member dies. Throughout the country and particularly in rural areas people put aside some money to ensure their funerals are paid for.

When they leave this world, they want to go out with dignity and without any debt left after them. Everyone would have factored in this. Many people say the social welfare system is too generous. One could argue that in some limited cases the system is too generous but in this case the person concerned would have paid PRSI all his life. It is a contribution scheme and the stamps and contributions are paid and then the relatives claim for the benefit at the time of death. This is a retrograde step. It is something that people would have factored in. People are concerned about it and they are coming to us as a result. Quite rightly, people would have factored this in. These people would have been lifelong savers with credit unions and would have factored in what is available at the end in addition to the State grant. Many people come to all Deputies to help them with their affairs immediately after a bereavement in the family. Now we have to explain that it has been cut although they may argue that they have contributed.

In the overall context there is an attitude to the effect that the social welfare system is too broad and generous and people are spinning that attitude. There is a notion that people are on the system but that they should not be on the system. I maintain that 95% of the people on social welfare, especially on the jobseeker's allowance or benefit, want to get back to work. The last place they want to be is on the live register. If they were able to get a decent job they would. The notion or perception that they are better off on social welfare because of the benefits does not make sense. If we do the sums on the financial side, they simply do not add up. By and large, people on social welfare are on the lowest rung of the ladder and are simply trying to make ends meet. On the human or personal side, they are far better off working.

This is where the Tús initiative and the rural social scheme, which helps people with farm assist payments, come in. These have been of great benefit especially in rural communities. The schemes have been administered by the Leader companies throughout the country and they have given remarkable benefits. I have seen a vast number of people who have benefited from these schemes but the people who have benefited most, particularly in rural Ireland, are farmers' wives or spouses, those who would have stayed at home to look after the families. Then, when the families were reared they were at a loose end and then they began to reintegrate into the workforce. They have a remarkable amount to contribute. They have run a household on a shoestring and probably a farm budget as well for many years and they have done very well for the family as a result. Now these people tend to go back into the workforce, especially under the rural social scheme, because it gives more years.

The Tús scheme has great potential and was brought in by Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, who was the Minister responsible at the time. I have seen people who have been out of the workforce for several years through no fault of their own and people who have been in difficult family circumstances and unable to get into the workforce for a raft of reasons, whether bereavement or illness and so on. These people go back on the schemes and integrate into the society and there is great potential there in respect of the Tús scheme and the rural social scheme.

On the other side, let us consider the fact that the means test for farm and fish assist payments are being cut and what is allowable or otherwise on those schemes has been cut further. This makes it more difficult for farmers or their spouses with small holdings or a low-income to access these schemes. It is penny-pinching and it is a matter of the Minister cutting off her nose to spite her face because it will not deliver any long-term savings to the State. The position of people will be further eroded or they will be moved out of society rather than integrated into society through the rural social scheme or the Tús scheme.

There has been a spin or a perception circulated during the week from the media and other circles to the effect that the elderly have been recession-proofed. They have not been recession-proofed because their cost of living has increased dramatically and their income is the same as in recent years. Furthermore, as they get older they encounter considerable expenses. There have been comments on local radio and elsewhere relating to prescription charges. If we tot up every 50 cent added, every €1 cut here or there or every €1 taken off the telephone allowance, it is directly and absolutely taking from their incomes. These people have worked remarkably hard all their lives. By and large, the elderly of the country are dependent on the State pension. No one had vast amounts of money during their lives such that they were able to save for retirement. They are dependent on the State pension and on the household package and the State benefits that follow. There is a view that by cutting one or chipping away at this or that we are not attacking their core income but no one is codded by that. The Government is taking these benefits from them and making it more difficult for them to live.

I have a major issue with the changes to the entitlements of the elderly and death grants in the Bill. Recently, I spoke with the Minister. All the schemes should be expanded more to encourage more people into employment.

See this speech in context