Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The Bill, while it contains some very welcome measures such as the increase in the old age pension and the income disregard for lone parents, as well as some other social protection measures, still begs the question as to what is the real value of the moneys for those who receive them. One may say the extra €5 for a pensioner is to be welcomed, but one quickly realises its value reduces dramatically, given the increase in the cost of living. In some cases, it is absorbed by increases in other areas and swiftly taken back. For example, an old age pensioner living in local authority accommodation may find that it will be taken away when the rent is adjusted upwards by the local authority. The real value is not the €5 decided on in the Bill. A pensioner living in his or her own home which he or she has purchased may not have to contend with rent increases, but he or she will find that home and motor insurance costs and other bills are increasing. The cost of living has to be considered in the context of decisions made.

Lone parents have been affected disproportionately by several progressive budgets. Households headed by a lone parent are most at risk of poverty. It is very welcome that there are some improvements for lone parents. When a child starts school, the voluntary contribution kicks in. This is a cost. The State is having an impact in different ways. Deputy Mattie McGrath has made the point that there needs to be an holistic approach to these matters. While there have been improvements in child care provision for lone parents who want to go back to work, we still have the highest child care costs in Europe and, I would say, the developed world.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep a roof over one's head. Lone parents, those in receipt of welfare payments and trying to find accommodation are still trying to top up where there is a rent issue. Consequently, what they have in their pockets is often much less than what is perceived to be in them. There does not appear to be a quick remedy, but there ought to be some sensitivity shown in the handling of this issue. In some cases, the local authorities could be a little more helpful under the housing assistance payment scheme, in respect of which there is a 20% top-up payment permitted but which is not always allowed. Sometimes people hide things they should not be hiding. The many increases provided in the Bill may look acceptable on paper, but if we do not take measures to address the rapidly increasing basic cost of living, they will go but a little of the way towards helping those who find themselves suffering the most in trying to make ends meet. There is a need for a whole-of-government approach to addressing the cost of living. It should include people at work, those trying to run businesses and those in receipt of welfare payments.

In respect of welfare schemes, the Bill makes provision for self-employed persons to safeguard them in a similar way to the manner in which PAYE workers are safeguarded. There is no doubt that they are the most exposed group, yet they face the same increases in the cost of living and doing business as others. Essentially, they are taking risks with their future. Very often they are the last to be paid, particularly those involved in very small businesses. They are taking risks where they could opt into a scheme. They may not be opting in by virtue of the fact that there is ultimately no income to do so. If we truly want to safeguard entrepreneurs and encourage innovation, we must recognise many of the barriers facing those who try to create jobs in the economy. The measures contained in the Bill are welcome, but they ought to be part of a wider understanding of the need to support small and medium businesses.

I agree with a point made by Deputy Mattie McGrath that I have raised several times in the context of recent Social Welfare Bills, that being, people who are required to retire from Departments and other State bodies at 65 years of age despite there been a gap until their pensions are paid. People are in disbelief that they must declare themselves to be unemployed. This outrageous situation, which owes to the increase in the pension age, must be addressed. As long as the mandatory retirement age is not changed correspondingly, people will remain in a precarious position.

Turning to the cost of living, Irish Rail last week announced a fare increase of 19% on the Maynooth line in my area. Someone who earns a marginal benefit from going to work five days per week could see it quickly absorbed by that €7 weekly increase.

I examined whether the fluctuations in sterling were being passed on by UK-based retailers. I met the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, concerning this issue. She has been helpful. I hope that we will be able to get some outlets to consider what is happening. There is a 20% mark-up on many items simply because they are being retailed in Ireland. This does not have to do with the sterling differential. We must be conscious of the value of money. I cannot overstate this.

By its nature, our social protection system is designed to protect people in society and help ensure that they can play an active role therein. We would all subscribe to this. Every academic study across the globe has shown that, where people are equipped to participate in society, the gap between the haves and have nots is reduced and people who need a helping hand are assisted, a healthier and better functioning society will be delivered than one that has inequality at its root. A study was published which examined unequal societies. It found that more equal societies were healthier and had less crime. Its name was The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.

See this speech in context