John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill, which gives legislative effect to the budget changes. As the Minister rightly said, some of the changes that were made and announced in budget 2020 do not require legislation. I would like to acknowledge a change the Minister has made that I have been asking to be made for a long time, namely, bringing the date of social welfare changes back to January. While this may be limited, it is important. I have always felt that the people of this nation should be treated equally and if we are making taxation changes and social welfare changes they should happen at the same time. While it might only appear a small thing, the policy direction and the change is to be welcomed and acknowledged. I have long been of the view it is unfair to treat people differently.

That said, I am disappointed that, across a range of social welfare payments for pensioner couples, carers and people with disabilities, we are not seeing an annual increase. In a time of inflation, they will be worse off and, as Deputy O'Dea said, that cost of living inflation will affect people differently. It is worth noting the Minister has held open the option of increasing the national minimum wage sometime next year without reference to this legislation as it is a piece of work she can do outside the legislation.

It has constantly been stated that the reason the annual increase was not affordable this year was the context of Brexit, in particular a no-deal Brexit or a hard Brexit, and the impact it would have on the economy. While the budget was framed in such a way, and this Bill is giving effect to the budget, I cannot understand why the door was not left open to review the social welfare budget early in the new year following the Brexit deal. If there is a Brexit that is not a hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit, why can we not revisit the core social welfare payments? That would have been the prudent thing to do. Most workers next year will receive some sort of increase. Whether through the minimum wage, through existing agreements or through existing public service agreements, most workers are going to receive some type of pay increase next year but many people who are totally or partially dependent on social welfare, unfortunately, will not. As I said at the outset, the people of this nation should be treated fairly and equally and that does not seem to be happening in this regard.

I want to refer to particular increases. I have spoken before on the issue of the carer's allowance, in particular means testing. I want to refer briefly to a note I received from a lady. Her family moved into the Palmerstown area four years ago and they adapted their house without grants. Their daughter, who is eight, has a rare neurological condition which is life-limiting. Her daily struggles are that she is blind, she has very poor muscle tone, she is tube-fed and she has uncontrolled epilepsy. The mother is her full-time carer but is not able to receive carer's allowance because the husband is working. I have made this point before. Despite the fact he is working, they are not well-off because they are paying a mortgage and they are struggling to make ends meet. We need to review urgently the carer's allowance scheme in regard to people who find themselves in real need of financial support in very serious cases. The system is not adequate and does not take into account housing costs, whether mortgage or rent, which is a big deficiency of the scheme. The Minister may argue the whole scheme needs to be reviewed but if it is not taking account of cost of living in terms of rent or mortgage, it is missing the point. We are all seeing such people but I wanted to refer to that particular case. I ask the Minister that this be done urgently.

The Minister referred to the fuel allowance. One of the issues that has arisen and was brought to my attention is that, for many people who qualify and have the correct social welfare payment, they can only have excess income of €100 a year. How long has it been €100? The point people are making to me is that the savings they would have had a number of years ago have now grown and the €100 excess over the social welfare payment threshold means they are missing out on fuel allowance because they are a few euro over the €100. When was the €100 last index-linked and measured against inflation in order to treat people fairly, whether it is in terms of the capital or earned income they can have? There is no use saying that one side of the equation is going up. I have come across individuals who have crossed that threshold of €100 - they actually exist and it is not fiction or a myth.

I compliment the Minister on one issue which came before the Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection, namely, young people on jobseeker's allowance, in particular young people who are not living in the home. If young persons aged 18, 19 or 20 are not living in the home, it is generally for a very good reason and they need those supports. I am glad that, in this budget, jobseeker's allowance has been amended to treat them fairly. They have come from challenging backgrounds and find themselves not capable of living in the family home. Most 19 or 20 year olds would not just opt to leave and there are generally circumstances that make that happen. I am glad to see that change made in this budget.

See this speech in context