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

We discussed this issue on Committee Stage when Deputy Willie O'Dea brought forward his amendment concerning the effect of reductions in payments since 2011. I remember thinking at the time that 2008 would have been a more appropriate starting point. I notice that the Deputies bringing forward amendment No. 3 have selected 2008 as their starting point. That is a key date in terms of the discussion on the full impact of social welfare cuts on society.

The Bill we are dealing with is, in some ways, welcome because it provides for a partial restoration of child benefit. However, when seen in the full light of what has happened since 2008, this is only a pittance, given the scale of the cuts to a range of social welfare schemes. The Government has continued with the mantra that there has been no cuts to social welfare rates, but I have argued and demonstrated continuously that this is not the case. A range of cuts have been made and each one of them has impacted on those who were or were likely to be in receipt of the payments if they had remained as they were.

I have a list of 20 measures that have been taken, but there are possibly more. I remembered another when I was reading through my list. To my knowledge, there have only been two partial changes in addressing these cuts to social welfare payments, one of which is the one before us today in the form of an increase in child benefit of €5. The other is the partial reinstatement of the Christmas bonus which the previous Government abolished. The newest one is the back to work family dividend.

We do not have the full detail of that in front of us and it may be debated on the next social welfare Bill.

Given what I have said, it is important to list some of these changes, and I will try to do so as quickly as possible so as not to take up time. This is the context in which any such report would be made. It would have to take account of the previous Government's cut to the jobseeker's allowance as well as this Government's cut to the same allowance in 2014. It would take account of this Government's abolition of the €300 cost of education allowance, the abolition of the Christmas bonus under the Fianna Fáil Government and the changes to the means test for farm assist, which resulted in the ineligibility for many farming families. There were also the various different cuts to child benefit under this and the previous Government, which were substantial, as well as the cuts to the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, which was cut in three budgets in a row by this Government - to be specific, it was cut by €50 in each of the first two years and was then eliminated for 18 to 22 year olds attending college full-time.

The report would have to take account of the last Government's ending of the smokeless zone fuel allowance top-up and this Government's implementation of that cut, as well as the cut of six weeks fuel allowance by this Government, which amounts to €120 a year. There were cuts to the energy component parts of the household benefits package which were announced by the previous Government but introduced by the current Minister, the further cut to that package and the abolition thereafter of the telephone allowance component. There was the introduction in 2011 of a rise in the pension age in stages to 68, which would effectively see a cut of 16% in a person's pension entitlements, as well as the introduction of a tax on illness benefit from day one, when the first six weeks used to be exempt.

The treatment benefit scheme was cut by the previous Government and then further cut by this Government and there was the cut to the redundancy rebate for employers from 60% to 15%, and then its abolition by this Government. There was the cut to rent supplement by the Fianna Fáil Government and the reduction of the maximum caps. There has since been a very partial change in that regard and a later amendment will deal with the whole question of rent supplement. We have seen the abolition of concurrent payments, which mainly affects lone parents but also many who are disabled and who benefit from CE schemes. There was then the cut of three months to jobseeker's benefit by this Government.

Following the cut to the respite care grant of €325, my motion to try to restore that amount was, again, ruled out of order because Opposition Deputies cannot put amendments that would be likely to be a charge on the Exchequer. Hopefully, that is one of the changes the Constitutional Convention will deal with, and when its report is discussed in the House, we might then have a referendum to allow us to be positive and progressive, and put forward alternatives in the Chamber.

In budget 2013 the Minister cut the household benefits package by €84. She introduced a tax on maternity benefit and then cut the payment by €32 per week. There was a cut to the rate of invalidity pension for 65 year olds by €36.80 per week, as well as the abolition of the bereavement grant, the closure of the diet supplement scheme and the massive budget cut to the exceptional needs payment.

These are all cuts that need to be taken into account in the report that is being sought in amendment No. 3 or in the review Deputy O'Dea has sought in his amendment No. 2. I would prefer, in Deputy O'Dea's case, that we would look at the period since 2008 so we would know the full impact of all of the cuts and have a full understanding of how those who are most vulnerable in Irish society have been affected, given they are the people who benefit most from those schemes because they are dependent. They are the people who this Government promised in its programme for Government would be the most protected. They are the very ones who understand fully, when the Minister stands up and says the core social welfare rates have been protected, that this is not the case. The points I have listed prove undoubtedly that this is not the case and that, in fact, she went after those in receipt of social welfare harder than anybody else in our society, and they have suffered as a consequence.

See this speech in context