Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This has been a unique budget in that we, as an Opposition party, tried to influence the budget. With a minority Government, it was an unusual situation. Deputy Calleary, who is present in the House, and Deputy Michael McGrath tried to get parts of Fianna Fáil's manifesto enshrined into the social welfare aspect of the budget. The difference between last year's budget and this year's shows the influence of those gentlemen. Last year there was a 50:50 split between tax cuts and improvement to services. This time there is a 3:1 ratio, which shows the influence we had on it.

While the budget has welcome elements, with the limited fiscal space not enough has been done. The €5 increase in the State pension and the €5 increase across the board of most social welfare rates are welcome. We have gone a long way towards restoring the Christmas bonus, but it is a pity that it has not been fully restored this year.

This is a Fine Gael budget and certain items in our manifesto have failed to be addressed this time. The cuts to the one-parent family payment, which has suffered many harsh cuts in recent years, have not been reversed, which is a regrettable omission in the Social Welfare Bill. Disability payments and the recognition of people with disability, a key plank in our manifesto, have not been addressed this time around. With the reduction in the universal social charge and the increase in the national minimum wage, families will not see the benefits that they could have if there was an increase in the family income supplement threshold. There has been no increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. There has been no increase in the qualified child payment to those in receipt of social welfare payment. Families on social welfare have not been well looked after in this Social Welfare Bill.

There should have been more focus on certain schemes in the Social Welfare Bill. I welcome the extra 500 places on the rural social scheme. I met representatives of Rural Link this morning. They have identified that the risk of poverty in rural areas is 19.1% compared with 14.6% in urban areas. We have to recognise that there is poverty in all communities across the country. There are 2,500 on a waiting list for rural social schemes, which will increase with the change in farm assist. It is necessary to be on those waiting lists to qualify for farm assist. While the extra 500 places are welcome, they will definitely not address the serious issues we have. While we welcome some of the changes in farm assist which reverse some of the changes in the detail to qualify that were implemented in recent years, only 8,500 people qualify for farm assist. The figure should be much closer to 20,000 with the drop in farm incomes. While some changes are welcome, we have not gone far enough in allowing people to qualify for this scheme. Compared with other social welfare means tests, the test for farm assist is definitely the most punitive test. Unfortunately, many people who would be deserving of it fall outside the remit of the scheme.

Another speaker spoke earlier about JobPath, which has many drawbacks. The two organisations running this, Turas Nua and Seetec, are getting a fee for signing people up. However, they are signing up to a regime they cannot get out of and they are tied into the scheme for 12 months. It is not working in practice especially when another opportunity comes up for a person. This is another scheme like JobBridge which was designed to manipulate the figures and show that long-term unemployment was reducing. There has to be an opt-out clause for people who get employment nearer home and who can source more economically viable employment.

I have come across a number of cases in my constituency where people who have signed up to this scheme, or who have been forced into this scheme by the various organisations, and now have an opportunity to take up employment nearer home are deprived of that opportunity. The scheme needs to be tweaked to ensure that people, who get an opportunity, for example, in a rural social scheme or under community employment, can avail of it. While the objectives of the scheme are praiseworthy, in practice it is not working correctly.

People over 60 are suffering serious discrimination in getting work on community employment schemes. Unfortunately, when they are debarred from getting work on a community employment scheme at that age, they are in a cul-de-sac and no further employment avenues are open to them. We have had numerous examples in my constituency where people over 60 are excluded from community employment schemes and cannot get any further employment. I would like to see those addressed on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context