Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I mistakenly understood we would deal first with the provisions on pensions.

I concur with Deputy O'Dea on the need to include in social welfare legislation any provisions that amend or reduce the household benefits package. The elimination of the telephone allowance is an example of such a reduction. Many of those who claim the household benefits package paid contributions throughout their working lives and had an expectation that they would receive a package of important benefits in addition to their income.

One needs to closely study social welfare and pensions legislation to find out what is buried in its provisions. We are repeatedly informed that the core rates of social welfare are being protected. While I accept that statement is true, it leads people to believe that savings in the social welfare budget will be achieved exclusively through anti-fraud measures. Savings made in the area of fraud are not as significant as is frequently made out. It is important, therefore, that changes in the household benefits package are not introduced in secondary legislation, namely, regulations or statutory instruments, but are implemented in an up-front manner, which gives Deputies an opportunity to debate the merits of keeping these benefits. There is, for example, significant merit in keeping people connected by telephone given the inadequacy of mobile technology in some locations.

I refer to illness benefit. It is very big issue for people who are on a low wage to lose not only a week's wages but six days' wages. Six days of non-payment, when one is legitimately out sick, is a big knock for a household, in particular a low income one. Very often it takes a long time to recover from that. It may not seem like a big deal but it will have a very big impact on people in the low to middle income group who would have many commitments. We should not minimise the impact of that.

See this speech in context