Dáil debates

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Social Welfare Bill 2016: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

8:15 pm

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I had not forgotten him. I am glad he is in the House because there is a specific example in the social welfare we provide of where we need to improve our caring infrastructure. This relates to the fact that we have moved away from congregated settings for those with most difficulties. These are those in whom the Minister of State is most interested, that is, those with physical or intellectual disabilities. It is right that we have moved away from the old, institutionalised approach. However, we are not providing an alternative in the community that would give us a real ability to look after those most vulnerable citizens.

I know this is not just an issue for the social welfare budget. As previous speakers stated, we also need housing. We see this when we come to address specific examples. Parents may have an adult child who has severe intellectual disabilities. The difficulty they face is that the systems are not integrated. Housing or other respite facilities are not available. While we have taken the first step to move away from that old, historic, institutionalised care system, we have not provided the resources and the social welfare infrastructure for, in particular, those who are most vulnerable and in need of residential care. There is no connection between the health system, the housing system and, I would argue, the social welfare system. I consider that to be one of the first major gaps or flaws that I do not see being addressed within the Social Welfare Bill or in the budget more generally.

Our system of child benefit was deeply sexist. Originally, the payment went to the man of the house and there were all sorts of restrictions on it. It took a long time but, starting in the 1950s, we made advances. We made a major advance in the early part of the previous decade when we started to give significant support in the form of child benefit. I believe this was one of the best interventions in our social welfare system. By giving a sufficient amount for each child directly to the mother, it was one of the few measures that gave real financial protection to those in financial difficulty. They could rely on the child benefit payment as a final fallback to meet the most basic of needs.

I deeply regret that the Government did not increase the child benefit payment. I have no difficulty with the arguments made by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Katherine Zappone, that she wants to target certain child care provisions at those in disadvantaged communities. However, the latest evidence from the US and elsewhere is that one of the best ways of doing that is to provide financial security to the parents of very young children. I believe that our child benefit measure does that better than any other measure. I would prefer to have maintained a policy of not discriminating between different types of parenting and to have increased the child benefit payment. This leaves the choice to the parent. Every parent has different circumstances and an increase in the payment would have allowed them to call how best to support and raise their children. This is a critical intervention that can be made during the early years that can prevent an ongoing poverty spiral resulting from a lack of proper development of the social, educational, cognitive and emotional skills of our youngest people.

Many would argue that the problem is that this does not differentiate between the well-to-do and the poor because the child benefit system provides a universal payment. When I was in government, we spent an extensive period of time examining if that problem could be overcome and if we could integrate some sort of progressive measures into the child benefit system in order that it was not just a universal payment and could be further targeted at the most vulnerable. One of the biggest frustrations I had was the seeming inability of the State, which still exists, to integrate our social welfare system and our revenue and tax system. That is not a small project, but I have yet to hear a clear and coherent argument as to why it is not possible. It is one of the big structural changes we should be looking to make. Were we to do it, it would allow us to provide for all sorts of creative mechanisms such as the provision of refundable tax credits and the individualisation of our social welfare system and our tax system.

We only went half way in reforming our system. We individualised the tax system but not the social welfare system. We currently have a minority Government and different options can be examined. It is to be hoped we are over the worst of the previous crisis. This was a chance for us to make structural changes. I do not see provision in the Social Welfare Bill or in the budget for a new, better and increased form of child benefit.

I mentioned a further major concern of mine on budget day but I want to repeat it today. Many of the provisions in the budget are welcome. Our social welfare budget is not small. It is our biggest budget. People obviously welcome the €5 increase in the pension and other social welfare payments, but it was a mistake not to target the youngest people in receipt of social welfare. That was an unfortunate signal to send. That original reduction in the unemployment benefit payment to younger people was introduced during our time in government, but it was nothing like the scale that subsequently occurred during the time of the last Government. In the same way that we are looking to restore pay for the newest entrants to the teaching, nursing and other professions, it is right and time for us in this budget to start recognising that we need to provide such a safety net for younger people.

That someone is on the dole or in receipt of unemployment benefit is not always a sign that he or she is looking to shirk work. That is an old Victorian idea of social welfare. There are many instances during which a younger person may need a period when they are not working. They may be engaged in an artistic activity or a learning activity that is not part of the formal education system. We need to provide that flexibility for our young people and recognise that sometimes it is not easy, for instance, to transfer from the education system to the work system. On occasions, they need support. Perhaps they are emigrants who have come home and are taking several months to settle in. For a variety of different circumstances, the young person is just not in gainful employment at that particular time. Rather than having a punitive social welfare system that sends a sharp signal that a person has to get out and work, we should have used this opportunity, when funding was available, to provide an increased provision for younger people. I regret that this did not happen.

The Green Party and other Deputies have consistently noted the need for the introduction of a basic income model for social welfare provision. It is a fundamental truth that providing a basic income to all citizens allows them greater freedom to decide when to provide care and when to engage in community work or paid employment. This model recognises each form of employment. We should not create a restrictive social welfare system that removes benefits or supports when a person moves from unemployment into employment. A large amount of work done in society is of great benefit to individuals and society and this should be recognised through the provision of a basic income support. Such a model would provide a flexible, innovative and just social safety net. While it would not be easy to establish and those models that I have examined are expensive, there are means of achieving this objective. A refundable tax credit is one option which is supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and Canada and the Netherlands are introducing working examples of a basic income.

I do not get any sense that the Department of Social Protection is thinking outside the box. It continues to operate a large budget using existing systems without innovating or trying to spend its budget in a better and more effective manner that would reduce the need for it to be policed and would not have many administrative charges. It should do this while continuing to provide a basic social protection network, with the aim of creating an Ireland of which we can be proud and the genuine Eden to which we should aspire in our social welfare provision.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.