Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I had not intended to but I will begin by referencing some of the commentary from a previous speaker, Deputy Richmond. He talked about how important it is to be honest and said that if the Government needs to do more, it will do more. It is an interesting proposition. How much suffering must a parent or family experience before the Government decides to step in? Is there a requisite level of hunger before the Government will say it has the capacity to intervene? It is a logic I want to confront. Deputy Richmond referred to it as being fiscally responsible but I am not sure if it is ethical. If we have the capacity to ensure a family, an individual or an older person does not go cold or hungry, or without the basic provision of a warm coat, why are we waiting to intervene? There was space in the budget for targeted interventions that would have offset the worst aspects of the very real poverty people are experiencing, which has been exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis and all that goes with it. I fully appreciate that the blame for that lies with Putin's invasion of Russia but it also lies with consistent underinvestment in our social welfare system. If we have the capacity to intervene, I implore the Minister to do so before we see the worst excesses of that being felt in people's homes.

When the pandemic first hit in 2020, the first Bill many of us dealt with was the one that introduced the pandemic unemployment payment. It seemed the State had finally accepted that the current core social welfare rates were entirely insufficient to live a dignified existence. We cannot unsee that reality. We must acknowledge the lessons around minimum income standards that came from that experience. Those lessons are more imperative than ever, given the rapidly increasing cost of living for families in meeting their basic needs, heating their homes, feeding themselves and their children and keeping basic provisions. I keep referring to having a warm coat because that is a very real way by which poverty is measured in this country.

The cost-of-living crisis has been significantly exacerbated by the decades of underinvestment that preceded it. We must address the chronic deficits that exist in our public services, which have contributed to this. Increases to core social welfare rates are welcome and should be welcomed but we should go further. Changes to tax bands can help people in the short term but they will not solve the underlying problems that come with an absence of basic provision of public services. While emergency measures are necessary, and indeed welcome, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, so too are steps that will bring down the cost of living not only over the short term but over the longer term too.

It is hard not to agree with Social Justice Ireland, which called on the Government to raise all core social welfare rates by a further €8 a week through this Bill, bringing the total increase to €20. This call has gone unanswered. The organisation is correct that the €12 increases do not match up with the inflation consumers are experiencing. It is anticipated that that rate will continue to rise and with it so too will the hardship experienced. The Social Democrats believe in benchmarking social welfare rates to cover the cost of inflation, instead of waiting until we reach a crisis or the crisis being experienced in people's homes now is further exacerbated. We must move away from a style of politics that waits for people to undergo hardship, pain and strife before they are supported by the State.

We have an ongoing poverty problem, which I and others believe is simply being ignored. Over half a million people in Ireland are living in poverty. That is one in six people and one in three of those are children. They go to school without a warm winter coat and often have to go to bed hungry. The State does not show compassion for those who need it most when they need it. Others who are fighting illness or have a disability and are unable to work because of it face the highest risk of poverty in Irish society. Nearly 20% of this group are experiencing poverty. This is completely unacceptable. There is an ongoing need for better assistance for these groups. Further investment in disability services is essential to reduce the likelihood of individuals falling into that poverty trap and all that goes with it.

We talk about poverty and use the word too often but I am conscious that the very essence of poverty when experienced by the individual is beyond my capacity to even articulate at this moment in time. People contacting our office are cold and are going to become colder. They are hungry. A report from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul from last spring referred to the cost of survival. That report was released even before the war in Ukraine and all that has come with it. We talk of poverty but it is about the cost of survival for so many in this country. A recent report commissioned by the Department of Social Protection estimated that the overall average annual cost of disability is between €9,500 and €11,700, or between €180 and €225 a week. A comprehensive Government response must provide for these rising costs to level the playing field.

The lump sums announced in the budget have fallen short of the assistance the most vulnerable in our society require to keep them from the edge. The current cost of living, perpetuated by the energy crisis, has made every day a challenge for more and more people. Members of our retired population make up over 12% of those living in poverty. These people have worked their entire lives only to be forgotten by those who should be representing them and a State that should be wrapping its arms around them. Poverty is corrosive to the human condition. At its very essence, it is about the basic provisions a person is asked to go without. However, poverty is not inevitable. Effective policies progressed by a Government committed to universal public services could improve the quality of life for the many families living on the margins.

I will quickly refer to the minimum essential standard of living, MESL, as have others before me and I am sure others after will as well. This is a benchmark for social welfare rates to counter inflation. Many of us across the Opposition believe social welfare rates should be set in line with the MESL research, which currently sets core rates at €228 per week.

More important, it should track inflation and costs to ensure that rates move accordingly.

To ensure that social welfare supports maintain their real value, they must be adjusted in line with potential changes in minimum living costs. The estimated increase in minimal essential standards of living for the final quarter of this year is greater than the additional income provided by the measures ratified in the Bill. As a result, income inadequacy is forecast to deepen in the latter part of the year. The €12 increase to adult rates falls short of the €20 increase required to keep pace with the rising cost of living.

The €2 increase in the qualifying child rate is nothing short of insulting and the gradual progress that has been made in the past towards adequate income supports in this area will likely be reversed next year, falling below the MESL. I am conscious that one parent family groups called the budget announced a couple of months ago the most regressive for one parent families in the history of the State.

The core rate of fuel allowance has remained €33 per week despite massive inflation and rising energy costs. Research from Meitheal shows budget 2023 has not protected core social welfare rates. The increase in rates is not keeping pace with the rising cost of living. It is, therefore, a cut in real terms. However, the adjustment to conditions for supports such as changes to the fuel allowance means test and an increase in the working family payment threshold are welcome.

It is regrettable that a more targeted approach, one that focuses a greater share of available resources on low-income households, was not taken in the budget or even in this Bill. In order to ensure social welfare supports and the minimum rates of pay maintain their real value, it is imperative that they are adjusted in line with potential changes in minimum living costs.

Another decision made in the budget and not addressed in the Bill is why those with disabilities participating in the National Learning Network have been excluded. I believe the Minister rectified this recently, which is welcome.

I will table amendments to the Bill to deal with a couple of issues, if possible. In recent years, before and after I was elected to the House, I have taken great umbrage at the manner in which social welfare inspections are carried out. I have seen how that has impacted people, predominantly one parent families, not only in my constituency but around the country. I intend to bring forward a Bill that questions the practice over the coming months. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that or perhaps over the next couple weeks she and I could have a conversation about it. The legislation that enables a social welfare inspector to carry out his or her work is, we are told, only relevant in cases where potential employment or self-employment is taking place on a premises or a person has to prove he or she is resident at an address for the purpose of rent supplement. In all other cases those inspections should not take place. These are older, cruel practices that create a hostile environment in our social welfare system.

I was recently made aware of a case where social welfare tried to contact a person and, for some reason, could not. It appears that recipients go to post offices where they previously received their payments but find their payments are not available and no explanation is given as to why that is the case. They then have to go to an Intreo office because, inevitably, they will not have any money and are living hand to mouth. They are told the Department has redirected their payments to another post office. In my constituency, post offices are relatively close to each other but in other constituencies they can be much further away. People have to get a bus or taxi to a post office or Intreo office to find out why payments have been redirected. They will then have to get a bus or taxi to a second post office to collect payments. That is happening in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis in which people are living hand to mouth. It is a cruel and unjust practice and needs to be eradicated. I intend to challenge it through legislation, if necessary, over the coming months.

See this speech in context