John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and acknowledge the importance of its speedy passage through the Houses due to the increases contained in it. For that reason, we will be not be objecting to it today but we fully intend to submit numerous amendments on Committee Stage.

It is important to say that social welfare increases are only welcomed by recipients and by stakeholders because the payment is so inadequate in the first place. By increasing certain payments by €2, €3 or €5, the Minister is not making social welfare payments adequate, nor are the increases based on evidence of any kind. To quote Social Justice Ireland, this budget betrays the vulnerable as many are left further behind. We should be working towards making all social welfare supports adequate for those who rely on them and we should be moving to an evidence-based approach. Instead, every single year, we have a political football around social welfare rates. Prior to this budget, Fianna Fáil was demanding a €5 increase for old-age pensioners but it quietly moved away from that when it failed to achieve it. Every year we see the furore about whether people in receipt of social welfare will get a fiver. Fine Gael announces it and Fianna Fáil likes to take credit when it is given but remains silent when it is not. This is no way to treat pensioners, lone parents, low income households and persons with disabilities.

Sinn Féin has put forward a fully costed and workable solution, a social welfare commission.

This would use evidence, including the minimum essential standard of living as set out by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, to make recommendations to Government on social welfare rates annually ahead of the budget. This work would be done on the basis that different households have different needs and that social welfare rates must, therefore, be adequate to meet various household needs. This would protect the most vulnerable households from poverty and ensure that social welfare rates are adequate, putting an end to people being left hoping for a fiver every year when the budget comes around. I also appeal to the Minister to consider that linking social welfare rates to the consumer price index, CPI, or to average industrial earnings will not ensure adequacy, but adequacy is what is needed. Stakeholders made this clear to her at the annual pre-budget forum. She needs to listen to all the stakeholders supporting this important work.

Section 4 relates to young jobseekers and the changes to their payment rates. For years, the Minister and her Government have ignored the impact reduced rates of payment have had on our young jobseekers aged between 18 and 25. This was started by Fianna Fáil, which of late has seemingly seen the error of its ways and is now calling for a change to that. It is glaringly obvious that living on €100 per week will lead to major difficulties for someone with no job. This was a dangerous cut made by Fianna Fáil and followed by Fine Gael in government. This Bill does not fix it; instead it replaces an age condition with a living condition. Those aged between 18 and 24 will have their payments increased to the full rate if they live independently and are in receipt of State housing support. How many people living on €112.70 per week could afford to live independently? The number is 300 people, leaving more than 14,000 young jobseekers on €112.70 per week. The increase provided for in the Bill will, therefore, benefit the smallest number of jobseekers possible. Perhaps the findings of the report into the impact of reduced jobseeker rates, overdue since mid-2016, is what opened the Minister's eyes to the reality for young jobseekers. We cannot say that for sure, however, because over three years later we have not seen that report. It has been hidden away and has not seen the light of day. I again call on the Minister to publish the report immediately. All jobseekers, regardless of age or living arrangements, should receive the same rate. The discrimination based on age needs to come to an end.

A number of changes in the Bill will be of some small benefit to lone parents, but that is simply not enough. According to the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, lone parents are in deep income inadequacy. Lone parent families are five times more likely to live in consistent poverty than households headed by two adults. The changes the Minister's party, along with the Labour Party, made to the one-parent family payment made life harder for lone parent families. That was the conclusion of Indecon in its examination of the changes. In this State both parents are legally obliged to maintain their children yet there are no consequences for those who do not, nor are lone parents assisted in seeking child maintenance. Over and over again, lone parent families are failed by the State. Why do we put it on lone parents to seek maintenance from the other parent? Why do we force lone parents into courtrooms to seek maintenance from a judge? Why does the State fail to act when maintenance is granted and court ordered but not paid? When it comes to child maintenance, which is proven in every country in which it is paid to play a massive role in reducing poverty, why does the Government choose to chase the non-custodial parent to cover its own costs in paying the one-parent family payment but have no involvement in seeking or guaranteeing the payment of maintenance? I seek clarity on the Minister's intentions in respect of the judge-led group she is establishing. Is it being established with the aim of setting guidelines or setting up a statutory child maintenance service, which is what lone parents are looking for? Will the stakeholders be heard on this? It is critical that they are. We have, again, brought forward the solution to this twice - in our published proposals and in a recent motion passed by the House.

I refer to the omission of provisions to address a lacuna in statute that excludes married same-sex male adopters from accessing 24 weeks' adoptive leave, which the Government has consistently stated it will address since 2016. The lack of adoptive leave for men is a major obstacle to their being able to adopt. We should not limit adoption for parents who are fit and capable of providing care. Given that this is the only family type omitted from the Bill, we should address it purely based on the discriminatory element the current law upholds. Given its recent omission from the Parent's Leave and Benefits Act 2019, the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, stated he would address it in this Bill, yet it seems to be missing from the legislation again. While I am aware that the Minister of State has been in contact with parents stating that amendments are still being drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, can the Minister indicate when she believes she will be able to include this in the Bill? Given her previous dealings with the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 and the difficulties the delays caused and are still causing, and given how proactive she was in addressing her remit in that regard, I hope she will continue that proactivity in dealing with this issue. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties described the exclusion of male same-sex adoptive couples from the Parent's Leave and Benefit Act as an unacceptable and unjustifiable form of discrimination against them. This discrimination is happening on the Minister's watch. Will she commit to include the necessary amendment to this legislation on Committee Stage to right once and for all this wrong?

The €2 increase in the fuel allowance fails to deal even with the rate of inflation, let alone the carbon tax hike that will be imposed on citizens throughout the State. I tabled an amendment in this regard to last year's Social Welfare Bill because I firmly believe that the fuel allowance could, and should, be used as a means to help people out of fuel poverty, which is gripping too many of our citizens. Year after year I stand up here to cite examples of some of our most vulnerable citizens having to sit in State premises and buildings and on trains, using their free bus passes, simply and purely to keep warm. This €2 increase is a slap in the face to those citizens, given the massive hike in the carbon tax. The Minister needs to commit to work on the issue of fuel poverty, which I have raised consistently, with a view to using the fuel allowance as a means of lifting our citizens out of fuel poverty.

Regarding the National Training Fund, a 0.1% increase in employer levy is included in the legislation, yet money is still sitting in that fund unspent. If the Minister is to keep increasing the amount being paid in, at the very least the money should be spent on what the fund was set up to do.

We know from the reply to a parliamentary question asked by my colleague, Deputy Quinlivan, that between 2015 and 2018, €299 million had been collected but not spent, while the projected underspend in 2019 alone is a further €199 million. This is absolute madness. Why is this money not being spent? Why we not targeting it at those on the live register?

In addition, more money from the national training fund, NTF, should be invested in the apprenticeship scheme. The scheme is in dire need of reform and expansion to ensure we will not only give young people more tertiary education options but also equip Ireland with the skilled workers needed for growing and emerging industries. Sinn Féin has pledged to abolish apprenticeship fees to help to encourage more people into apprenticeships. It would cost just €4.8 million this year, a tiny 1% of what has been collected but not spent under the NTF in the past few years. The Minister must clarify why this money is going unspent and outline how he intends to invest the hundreds of millions of euro that has built up.

Sinn Féin is not going to oppose this legislation, but we will be tabling amendments once it moves to Committee Stage. There are some positive things included in the Bill, but the substantive issues I have outlined in my contribution need to be addressed. I look forward to the Minister's response because I have been asking some of these questions consistently for many months and years. I particularly hope I will receive answers to the questions I have asked about the reports that have been hidden away from people, some of the most vulnerable citizens, who need to see them. This House is also entitled to see them.

See this speech in context