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

Táimid ag déileáil leis an mBille Leasa Shóisialaigh, 2016. Tá difríocht idir an méid atá á dhéanamh sa Bhille seo agus na ciorraithe a tháinig os comhair na Dála i mBillí den tsórt seo le tamall de bhlianta anuas, nuair a bhí orainn laghduithe ar an méid airgid a bhí á thabhairt do dhaoine faoi scéimeanna áirithe agus san iomlán a phlé. Is féidir a rá nár cheart "Bille Leasa Shóisialaigh" a thabhairt mar Theideal ar a leithéid de reachtaíocht seo muna bhfuil aon leas i gceist agus má tá gearradh siar á dhéanamh ar an méid airgid atá ar fáil. Cé gur mhaith an rud é go bhfuil ardú éigin ann sa chás seo, ní chreidim go bhfuil sé ard go leor sa chuid is mó de na scéimeanna. Ba chóir dúinn díriú ar arduithe suntasacha agus ba cheart dúinn déileáil leis an míchothromas atá laistigh den Bhille.

The social welfare system is supposed to be beneficial and enhance peoples' circumstances. That is why it was set up. For many years people have been dependent on it because there is no work available to them, but in the middle of that dependence the Government cut the amounts available to those in need of social welfare assistance. We are dealing with the legacy of five years of cuts by the Fine Gael Party, in particular, supported by the former Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton. Prior to that, cuts were also introduced and implemented by the Fianna Fáil-led Government.

The idea behind the social welfare system is that it enables social transfers to be made. Social transfers are not designed only to ensure individuals will not become totally destitute; they are also advantageous to local businesses because virtually every cent given in social welfare payments is spent in local shops and businesses. This benefits the community at large. One of the side effects of the cuts in social welfare rates in recent years made by the Government and its predecessor which was propped up by the Labour Party was that small local shops and businesses suffered and many closed. With this Bill, I hope we will see the start of the reversal of the cuts, but the amounts involved are paltry and miserly. If one gives a social welfare recipient in Dublin living in social housing an additional €3 or €4 per week, I guarantee that, as happened in the past, the local authority will increase the rent payable by the same amount. In the past increases in benefits, even of paltry amounts, were eaten up straightaway by increases elsewhere with the result that there was no additional money in peoples' pockets. An increase of €3 to €5 in most payments, as suggested in the Bill, will not substantially alter the lives of those who are totally dependent on the social welfare system, including pensioners, those in receipt of disability allowance, jobseeker's allowance and so forth.

Many of the people who are totally dependent on social welfare benefits are not actively seeking work; they are not job seekers. Many of them will never be back in the workplace again and do not have the wherewithal to find work, even if it was available. They cannot enhance their lot and are dependent on whatever is handed out by us as a society through the Government. That is why Sinn Féin has consistently called on the Government to ensure social welfare payments will be index-linked. However, before they are index linked, we must first determine if they are adequate. That has not happened to date and the Bill does not take the opportunity to set that process in train.

In Dublin and most of the other large cities there is a huge housing crisis, as referred to by my party colleague, Deputy Eoin Ó Broin. Rent increases in this city have been enormous and this affects everyone, including those in receipt of rent allowance. There is an assumption that the latter group do not have to pay out any money, but they must contribute a small portion of their income which is worked out by the Department. However, everyone in this city knows - I presume it is the same in other cities - that in the vast majority of cases rent allowance recipients make under the counter payments to their landlords. Once landlords know that tenants have an extra €3 or €5 per week, they will come looking for their pound of flesh. The entire rent allowance system is fraught with danger, which is why I have always argued that rather than propping up private landlords, we should be investing in social housing.

One element that is missing from the Bill is a focus on a scheme which was introduced by the last Government and which I actually welcomed. I encouraged the Minister to put time and effort into the JobsPlus scheme, which encourages employers to take on employees in return for a State subsidy. Instead, the last Government spent all of its time propping up the JobBridge scheme which, thankfully, is now being scrapped. The Government must make a commitment to promote the JobsPlus scheme in the same way as it promoted the JobBridge scheme, with all of the razzamatazz that went with it. Under the JobsPlus scheme, an employee is paid at least the minimum wage, if not more, and works for at least 30 hours per week. That was not the case under JobBridge scheme, which was of no advantage to the vast majority of participants in it.

There are other missed opportunities in the Bill. A motion dealing with the situation in Calais was passed earlier in the House. The vast majority of Deputies have the interests of children at heart. One of the ways to tackle child poverty in this country is to address for social welfare recipients the qualified child allowance which currently stands at €29.80 per child.

A child who is dependent on a parent on social welfare gets €29.80. If we want to help those families with children in poverty, we increase that. It was not increased nor was the qualified adult allowance. Many people in or associated with the social welfare system do not get the same benefits as others. A qualified adult does not quality for community employment. I heard the last Deputy talk about how great community employment is. I am on a number of boards where community employment is important and I think it should be enhanced. However, if someone is a qualified adult, they are not in receipt of a social welfare payment in their own right and, therefore, will not qualify for a scheme. The same is true of many people whose husband or wife might be working but who do not get any social welfare payment and do not have any independent income. They want to get back into the workforce but have been out of it for a number of years and they think that community employment or one of those type of schemes might be a mechanism for doing so but because they are not in receipt of social welfare, they do not get that benefit.

There is a range of issues here, the vast majority of which I do not oppose. We could have gone a lot further. The problem is that it is not an imaginative document. It is not far reaching because it is not making a difference in the lives of those dependent on social welfare. One area that is often raised is overpayments, about which the Comptroller and Auditor General speaks. I have argued over the years that the number of social welfare inspectors should be increased because they have shown that they can work. I pay tax, as does everybody here. If somebody in Revenue makes a mistake and charges me too much and I do not notice it for four years, it is hard luck. You have to claim it back within four years. In the case of a social welfare overpayment, the Department can go back 20 or 30 years because there is no Statute of Limitations in respect of claiming back. I understand the lack of a Statute of Limitations in the case of fraud because it is a crime but in the event of somebody making an error regardless of whether it is the official or the recipient, there should be some limit matching the limit that is put on what taxpayers can claim back where if the case is more than four years old, Revenue will say it is hard luck because the person should have claimed. There is a range of other issues. Hopefully, I will get the opportunity to raise some of them on Committee Stage because it is an opportunity.

The Opposition is restricted in what it can do in respect of social welfare and finance Bills. We cannot put down move amendments to this Bill on Committee Stage if it is a cost to the Exchequer or the people, regardless of whether it is a positive or a negative from the Government's point of view. I have argued continually that we should be given that opportunity to do this so that we can properly engage with legislation that would benefit the public.

See this speech in context