Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am opposed to this Bill, not because I object to the rate of child benefit being increased - I welcome that - but because it is a remarkable piece of legislation. Normally when we say something is remarkable, we are talking about what is contained in it. This legislation, however, is most remarkable not for what it contains but for what it omits. I will come back to that point shortly. I am also opposed to the Bill because it is an intrinsic part of the fourth regressive budget brought in by this Government. There is an old saying that two wrongs do not make a right, but four wrongs certainly do not make a right.

The Minister has announced - as did the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on budget day - that they we putting €196 million back into social welfare. What they did not mention was that over the three preceding budgets the Government took almost €2 billion out of social welfare. Outside organisations who have no particular axe to grind have said that this budget alone has widened the gap between rich and poor by a minimum of €500 per annum. As the Tánaiste said, we have just come through a massive economic recession. The people who were hit hardest in this recession are the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us. One would have thought that when the day arrived when the Government had something to give back, those people would be at the start of the queue, but no. If one closely examines the provisions of the budget and the social welfare announcements, they remain where they were before - at the end of the queue.

The cumulative effect of the hits those people have suffered over several years is devastating. They represent a major factor in our considerable levels of poverty but these cuts do not tell the whole story. They must be seen in the context of cuts to public services, which have also weighed hardest on those least able to afford them.

Government spokespersons have disputed the fact that the budget is regressive. However, as a result of this budget, a single unemployed person gains €46.80 per year. A couple with two earners on €125,000 per year have gained €1,226, which is nearly 30 times more. The budget gives about 90 cent per week to an unemployed single person, and €14.30 per week to a single person earning €75,000. It certainly sounds regressive to me.

The Social Welfare Bill is remarkable for what it does not contain. The Government's main innovative proposal is the so-called family dividend, from which the Minister has generated several public relations outings, announcing that it would be part of the budget. Two days ago, however, when we got copies of the Bill we found that the proposal had not been thought out at all. It was not ready for inclusion in the Bill but will be introduced in some other Bill next year to take effect when the legislation is enacted. That does not show a particular sense of urgency on the Government's part. There are many questions about the family dividend provision which I would like to ask but I will have to wait until the new Bill is produced, whenever that may be. We are also told that changes to the Christmas bonus and living alone allowance can be made by way of regulation. Basically, therefore, we are debating a Bill the totality of which is to give an amount equal to one extra hour of child care per child, per month.

The Bill is also remarkable for a number of other things it omits. The Minister will be aware of all the submissions received by her and various other Ministers, including the Minister for Finance, in the lead up to the budget by various individuals and organisations. She will also be aware that the Committee on Education and Social Protection heard from representatives of a number of those organisations. From what they said, it was quite possible to ascertain what the main items on their agenda were. They represent those who suffered most in the recession and were the main victims of the cuts totalling almost €2 billion. The cost of heating, the fuel allowance and ESB bills loomed large on their agenda.

People are isolated because they can no longer afford to pay the rent on a landline or can only pay it with great difficulty just to have an alarm system. Lone parents wanted the disincentives to work to be removed. Carers provided some €70 million per week in unpaid work for the State. It is no exaggeration to say that not one of these demands, which were couched in modest terms and were modest reversals rather than complete reversals, have been met.

The cost of gas and electricity has escalated to the point where Ireland is the dearest in the EU. Against that background, with no increases in social welfare benefits and cuts in other aspects of several social welfare provision, the Government reduced the period for which fuel allowance is paid from 32 weeks to 26. In addition, it gutted the free ESB allowance at a time when social welfare was not increasing but gas and electricity prices were. The total amount taken from the two allowances over the past number of budgets comes to €90 million, with some €51 million off the fuel allowance and €38 million off the free ESB allowance.

Many organisations that approached us had carried out surveys. I do not have adequate time to read out all the comments in response but some said that home heating had to be reduced to save fuel so that one man's wife, who is ill, stays in bed most of the time. Another comment was that a person only turns on heating in some rooms and does everything to save heat, including extra clothing, staying in bed late and going to bed early. Another comment was that a person rarely uses the phone. That is what is happening in the real world in Ireland in 2014.

The free telephone rental allowance was also high on the list. People of my personal acquaintance find that the rent costs a multiple of what they spend on calls. I am sure the same is true of the Tánaiste.

See this speech in context