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

Ba mhaith liom an deis seo a ghlacadh chun labhairt faoi cheist an chosaint shóisialta mar a ghlaotar air anois. Tá ceisteanna ríthábhachtach ann nach bhfuil sa Bhille seo gur chóir go mbeadh ann. Ba chóir go mbeadh muid ag déanamh an deis a thapú tacú leo siúd atá ag brath go hiomlán ar leasa shóisialta nó ar liúntais leasa shóisialta. Níor thapaigh an tAire an deis sin an uair seo.

In this Bill, we should be addressing key elements of the welfare code and trying to ensure that, for those who are weakest or most dependent on welfare, we would take the opportunity to address those issues.

We have not gone far enough. We did not take the opportunity. I will raise a number of these issues.

One issue that should have been addressed is the diet supplement. One can receive a payment towards it through the supplementary welfare allowance, but, like many other cuts under the previous Government, this one has been continued into this term. The Minister for Social Protection in the previous Government, Deputy Burton, cut the diet supplement in total. It was reintroduced in a strange way rather than brought back as a stand-alone supplement that could address specific needs on a case-by-case basis. Instead it has clogged up the supplementary welfare allowance system.

Another area where a lot more could be done is CE. We should have used that opportunity, especially given the increase in employment. A cohort in our society is dependent on CE to get the training to go back into work, yet there is still a legacy cut to the training and maintenance allowance for CE participants. Participants on CE schemes can appeal to try to get the extra €500 or so per participant. That is not good enough. It should be automatic, especially given that many of the courses the groups overseeing CE participants are trying to fill, whether a safe pass, manual handling pass or something else, cost more than the current rate. They end up sending in a note looking for the extra funding. It is usually given but, given that there is an understanding that the cost will be higher for the courses that will give the participants the skills to go back to work, given the times we are in and given the fact that, as far as I can see, there seems to be a reduction in the numbers on CE schemes, the cut should be reversed.

Deputy Calleary raised the issue of CE supervisors. This is the legacy of the previous Government and those that came before it, not the Minister's. The position of CE supervisors has never been fully addressed. The State set the hours and the rates and they could not get any overtime, yet no one ever made proper provision for pensions. I know there have been discussions. I have not been involved in them because I did not want to stick my tuppenceworth into the middle of them. By the looks of it, though, the discussions are now faltering again. I hope the Minister and her Department will provide the required proposals that the unions were awaiting and that the issue can be addressed. It is a pity it has not been addressed because this Bill could have contained those provisions. That is the idea behind the Social Welfare Bill. Once again, we have missed an opportunity, a phrase I have used a lot in this debate.

A change made a number of years ago has resulted in cases in which the parents of children who are 18 years of age and who are still at school do not get child benefit. This is ridiculous. It might have been fine 20 years ago, when the vast majority of secondary schools only provided for five years of education. Virtually every single school in the country now offers a transition year, which means that children are in school until 18 and 19 years of age, yet their parents receive no child benefit for them, although they are regarded as children in many ways.

A key instance of discrimination that I have found horrific over the years concerns social welfare payments to those aged under 26. I still believe that the cuts made in this regard amount to discrimination. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission should have made a finding to the effect that the fact that young people were not in receipt of full social welfare payments on an equal footing to others amounted to discrimination on age grounds. That still continues today. I acknowledge the changes the Minister has made and that there is, I hope, a gradual move towards equality once again, but it is not close enough. For tax purposes, people aged 18 paying all their taxes are treated as individuals. For social welfare purposes, those living at home see their parents' income taken as means rather than the parents' own means. Many people are stuck because of the housing crisis, but even those who are not necessarily stuck but who are at home are now saying, "If I can get HAP, I will get my full payment." That is the change that is happening. It should not be one or the other. If one is 18 years of age, one is an adult in the eyes of the law. That should be for all purposes, including social welfare payments. One should not be dependent, based on the social welfare code, on one's parental income. That should change immediately. If anyone, whether a parent or whoever else, has too much income, he or she should be taxed appropriately. The child should not be penalised. There is nothing to prove that parents will give to their children the difference between the full rate and what a claimant gets while living at home, whether it is €112 or, when it is means-tested, less than that. There is nothing to say that the parents are making up the shortfall between the full social welfare rate. In fact, it is probably the opposite; they are probably trying to encourage the young person out of the home.

Another cut made, which continuously comes up, was to the clothing allowance. There are people going to community welfare officers about this. I understand some of the logic behind getting rid of it, but most of the old people I have talked to in recent years have been adamant that it was one of the payments they fully respected, understood and utilised, especially coming up to key occasions, whether it was additional heavy clothing for wintertime or a change of clothes come Easter.

We must do a lot more to protect older people who are living alone and who are dependent on the fuel allowance. Fuel poverty in my constituency, in particular, is horrendous. Week in, week out, I have been knocking on doors and I find people who have a plan. For example, they will stick on the heating for an hour at 8 o'clock and, in the meantime, they have to sit there shivering away, hoping they do not catch pneumonia or the like.

A lot more could have been done; it has not been done this time. I hope there will be a supplementary social welfare Bill in the near future that will address some of these issues.

See this speech in context