Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will come back to Deputy Stanton's remarks later. First, it is important we acknowledge, as we always do when debating social welfare and pensions Bills, the enormous amount of work done by the staff of the Department of Social Protection, including those in its regional offices and thank them for their assistance to us through the Oireachtas inquiry lines. If other Departments were as helpful as the Department of Social Protection, our lives and the lives of those we serve would be an awful lot easier.

I heard many Government Deputies refer to work and getting people back to work. One does not have to be in the House to hear what is said here. We all sign up to that desire. However, to provide work one needs to create the conditions in which employers can create jobs. This Bill continues a trend of undermining support for employers and the support available to employees from the Department of Social Protection. For example, illness benefit has now been extended to six days, which will result in a €22 million saving for the Department but which will be passed directly on to small business. The lower rate for employers' PRSI is also being abolished. I spoke to a gentleman last night who employs 14 people, seven full-time and seven part-time, in a retail business. The change in PRSI alone will cost him €10,000 next year. He is also operating in a very difficult environment. The change in PRSI will result in the loss of two of the seven part-time jobs, which people will end up dependent on the Department of Social Protection for support.

As I said last night during the debate on older citizens, when one aligns decisions taken by the Department of Social Protection with decisions taken by another Department, some people are getting more than their fair share of the budget hit. Much was said during last night's debate about elderly people and the abolition of the bereavement grant, which does not make any sense in terms of the upset it will cause versus the relatively small saving being made. I know the Minister has outlined the other supports available. However, there are difficulties in accessing those supports. At a time of bereavement there are many demands on the family pocket. This little grant, in terms of the overall cost of a funeral, was a specific allocation used to pay the undertaker's bill.

The other issue is the increase in DIRT. I know this is not a social protection initiative, but many people put money aside to pay for their funeral. We are all used to hearing this, and now they will lose whatever little bit of interest they were making on that because of the decision in the budget. Again, it shows how different Departments have different initiatives but nobody seems to be co-ordinating. It is not just this Government that does that, but every government. We need to stop the silo way we have of doing business in this country.

Some of the awful cuts in this Bill, such as the single parent tax credit, do not seem to recognise the difficulties that separated couples have when they try to make provision to look after their children collectively, for the sake of family stability. Two parents may be working to support their children and they have different pressures on them. This cut undermines the very difficult circumstances that apply in situations like this when parents try to work together. We have got many e-mails from men - from women as well - which show the efforts that people are making to try to give their family some kind of stability in a break-up situation. This measure undermines those efforts and sends a very bad signal to those who are trying to make those efforts.

We had a very good presentation on Pathways to Work at the enterprise and jobs committee a few weeks ago. Much progress is being made in reaching the targets. However, it is one thing to reach the target, but quality is another. How effective are the one-on-one profiles and the interviews in the time that has been given? While that work is being rolled out, the decision to reduce the social welfare component for those new entrants aged under 25 is wrong, given the vacuum that exists. There are still not enough proper activation places for a large cohort of people, and there are still delays in getting it. New entrants have options under the back to education scheme, but it may not suit many of them and we are now reducing their payments to €100. Nobody wants to become dependent on welfare, but I do not think the supports and backup are properly in place yet. Perhaps the Minister might clarify whether a particular emphasis in the Pathways to Work scheme will be put on the targets on those aged 25 and under, but I think this is a very ill judged cut. Coupled with the letters going out to people recommending job vacancies abroad, this sends the wrong message to people.

I have spoken already about the cuts to community welfare offices around the country. The Minister and I will agree to disagree on this. I am still not convinced it is the right thing to do. I notice that it is not in the Bill, so I presume that the Minister has to sign an order, but getting rid of the telephone allowance is the wrong decision because it is not just Eircom that is getting the line rental. It is not only the telephone but the pendant. We all like to think we can live without a landline, but we cannot. However, older people are not mobile friendly and in recent years that pendant has become very important. The Minister needs to look at that decision again. It is not part of the Bill, so she has a difficult decision to make. At least she must ensure that the funding to community organisations is ring-fenced to ensure that nobody will lose their landline and then their emergency pendant. From a security and health point of view that does a huge amount of work.

Deputy Stanton referred to the issue of illness and invalidity. He has a point there. This is one of my difficulties with the way this Bill is being rammed through the House, for no apparent reason other than to slam down dissent that may arise in Government Buildings. Many of these changes do not take effect until 1 January. In respect of Deputy Stanton's proposals on illness benefit, some good work has been done on the "fit to work" schemes that could have been debated on Committee Stage if there was a proper Committee Stage. The issue in respect of the telephone allowance and the different supports available could have been debated if there was a proper debate. If there is to be any real progress with Dáil reform the first week after we proposed a change in the legislation, the notion is that Second Stage is a for speeches and Committee Stage is where it happens, but we are going to ram through Committee Stage in four or five hours tomorrow. This Bill will suffer as a result. Changes that might enhance the Bill, and might enhance the experience for those who need the support of this Bill, could have been done if a Committee Stage was debated over a number of weeks in the proper fashion.

Deputy Stanton must have got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. I listened in 2009 and 2010 to the Minister, when she was in opposition, slamming the cuts introduced then. We have heard what the Taoiseach said in 2008 about medical cards and what he is saying this week. Now the Minister is publishing Government funded PR material about all the adjustments being made, without saying that the majority of the adjustment was done under the last Government, every single measure of it opposed bitterly by the Minister. If we should apologise, then perhaps the Government Members should apologise for the false promises made immediately prior to the last election, in full knowledge of the seriousness of the situation. These included the promise not to change welfare rates and other changes that the Government is now making. At the end of the day, people who are in receipt of any payment are looking for an understanding within the political system that this Bill is impacting on many people in a very negative way. Unfortunately, the way it is being rammed through the House will not allow us to examine it sufficiently. The Bill will take effect when enacted and only then will we see the real impact of it, which will be a very negative impact for many hundreds of thousands of people in this country.

See this speech in context