Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Brendan Smith. I would love to discuss many of the points made by the previous speaker but unfortunately my time is limited to three and a half minutes. Despite all the guff and fake indignation we have heard on the floor of the House about the Government being allocated extra time, the longest I have ever been allowed to speak here since the Government took office is four minutes.

There has been a huge increase in the social welfare budget, necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Naturally, I welcome that. There are a number of innovative measures in this Bill and there is an attempt at targeting, which I welcome and for which I commend the Minister.

Owing to the short time available to me, I must confine myself to speaking on one point. I must confess to being bitterly disappointed that two years have now gone by without any increase in basic social welfare rates. I have emphasised time and again that inflation for those on social welfare, who can purchase only the bare necessities of life, and equally for those on very low incomes, is far in excess of headline inflation. That is because there are items included in the headline inflation figures, such as yachts and top-of-the-range cars, which the poor will never be purchasing. Studies by a number of organisations, including the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, have shown that, in effect, inflation in relation to the basic purchases of those on social welfare has increased by 5% to 6% over the past two years. The programme for Government makes a commitment, in page 85, to protect social welfare rates. Allowing the purchasing power of social welfare payments to fall does not constitute protection of social welfare rates. It appears to make a mockery of the commitment made by the Government on the levels of payments to social welfare recipients. These levels have been outlined and identified by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice and others as being barely capable of making ends meet.

Experience has shown that the weakest in society get left behind unless welfare increases keep up with increases elsewhere in the economy. Since 2016, average weekly earnings have increased by 16%, which is exactly double the rate by which social welfare has increased. The inevitable consequence has been that we have failed to make significant progress in reducing levels of poverty, despite the country enjoying growth rates that are among the highest in the world.

The most vulnerable have been allowed to fall further and further behind. In Ireland, almost 700,000 people are living on an income below the poverty line and child poverty rates are among the highest in the OECD. We cannot afford to create a permanent and expanding underclass in this country because if we do, we will have within our society a growing army of people who will remain shackled to poverty indefinitely. The long-term consequences of this for Irish society and politics would be profound and would not be for the good.

A question I had intended to put to the Minister was whether she intends to reform the system whereby increases to the fuel allowance are the only compensation for increases in carbon tax. A huge cohort of social welfare recipients do not receive the fuel allowance at all. A huge cohort on very low incomes, who rely on what used to be the family income supplement for their weekly survival, do not get the fuel allowance at all. Are those people expected just to suck up an increase that is being introduced because some people believe it will change people's behaviour, whatever about the evidence?

I will defer to my colleague Deputy Smith.

See this speech in context