Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Bernard Durkan is sharing time with Deputies Joe O’Reilly and Eoghan Murphy.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important social legislation which follows the budget every year. It is a good time to review progress from where we were four or five years ago. I compliment the Minister for Social Protection on her efforts. I congratulate the Minister of State at the Department of Social Protection, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, on his elevation and I wish him well in that office.

How lucky this country is that it was possible to survive in the kind of climate the present Government was greeted with when it took office three and a half years ago. Every morning when we woke up over those years we had a concern or query as to whether there was something coming down the track that would cause further confusion and create a problem for the Government and the people. We must recognise the huge sacrifices made by the people the length and breadth of the country, those who were employed and those who were unemployed, those in need of care and carers, those who have disabilities. Every part of our social strata was detrimentally affected in some way or another by the exigencies within which the Government had to operate.

We have been very well catered for in the way the Government has handled the situation. If it had done something different and behaved irresponsibly three and a half years ago we would be in a far worse situation than we were five years ago. It was a question of being cruel to be kind, to make sure there was something available to everybody in so far as was possible and that the most vulnerable in society survived. At the same time it tried to encourage and create employment. That was a very difficult task.

The incoming Government was told that unemployment was at an all-time high, the bills and debts had mounted hugely and it must run the country with no money and try to survive. That was a tall order. I have been listening to Opposition Members in recent weeks and have at the back of my mind a concern that they seem to have forgotten where we came from and where we could quickly return if we are not careful.

The dangerous notion that everything in the garden is rosy is developing quickly. Many improvements have been made and a great deal has been achieved, albeit at great cost. If we are not careful to be judicious in the way we spend our money and cater for our economy, we will quickly go back to where we were and there will be no recourse from any quarter. We will not even have the benefit of bailouts because we will not be regarded as a good risk. Many people say there are alternatives, but I assure the House that if there were alternatives, the Government would have found them long ago. Those who glibly put these so-called alternatives into the public arena, including my good friend on the other side of the House, have suggested that €1 billion can be gathered from various sectors of the wealthy, the well-off and the rich-----

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yourself.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but that €1 billion has been spent about ten times by now.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yourself.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In actual fact, it applies to you as well because you get the same salary that I do.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You get nine times more wages than a person working on the Kishoge site.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but for the benefit of those who have not been in this House for too long, a bit of education might go a long way.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You earn nine times as much.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is speaking directly to me, a Chathaoirligh. He is not even speaking through the Chair.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Member sitting opposite has the very same salary as me. It is an interesting thing. They seem to be operating-----

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is earning ten times the wages of someone on the Kishoge site.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Deputy.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the old tactic coming from that quarter. They refuse to listen to any reason at all except their own.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All we hear from the other side of the House is "there is no alternative" and "do not cut my wages".

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some €1 billion is allegedly available to deal with the provision of water and all the other things that have to be done in this country. It has been suggested that it should be released to everybody to buy the next election at any cost, even if it ruins the country. That is what it means. This €1 billion has been spent approximately five times by the party opposite by now. If that continues, the whole spectrum of the economy be affected in a detrimental way. The education and health services are rightly screaming for money at present. Costs are increasing all the time.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the cuts?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If necessary, I can go into great detail about the glib old remark that keeps being trotted out all the time to the effect that the money is there but it is not being taken from the right people. I can do that with anybody in any forum anywhere. I would be delighted to entertain those who think otherwise.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I heard the Deputy on "The Late Debate" a couple of nights ago.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The public has a right to know-----

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He was not very good at answering the questions.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----what is intended for them at the end of the day.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Audrey Carville asked the Deputy some hard questions.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those who are attempting at this stage to go out and buy the next election on the basis of money that does not exist have another think coming to them. We have heard all the old remarks about bondholders and all the various ways of doing this. If there were any other ways, they would have been found by now. If the Deputy opposite has found another way to do this, he should tell us about it.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in our pre-budget submission.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would be delighted to know more about the people the Deputy thinks have resources he can get at, to be distributed among the people as he sees fit.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in our pre-budget submission.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One speaker, please.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to say one last thing. I do not mind being interrupted.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is a past master at it.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is not.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I regard that kind of interruption as the usual facetious, obnoxious interruption that has no basis at all.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Muirsheen Durkan is sick and tired of working.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were other issues last night that Sinn Féin could have addressed, but it did not do so. We will not go there. Careful management of this country is now required. I remind the House and especially the sole Deputy sitting on the Opposition benches that when the former Minister, Deputy Quinn, left office in 1997, the books were balanced and everything on the record was in order. Every single economic indicator was right. Along with his colleagues in the outgoing Government at that time, he was blamed for not spending more money to buy the 1997 general election. Elections were bought subsequently by people who spent money unwisely and created expectations that were above and beyond the ability of this country to deliver on them. If there is anybody here now who believes we should take that course again, they should stand up and say how they are going to do it. I know it cannot be done. I compliment the Government on their efforts to date. I hope they can continue to run the country effectively, efficiently, fairly and in a balanced way without selling it and its people down the drain for repayments at a later stage. I hope all the hard work that has been done so far will be rewarded. I hope the people who made all the sacrifices so far will be rewarded in the time ahead in the way they should be and expect to be. It cannot all come at one time, but the intention is there. It will happen as long as we manage our finances carefully.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to speak in the presence of the newly appointed Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys. We have had a friendship for many years based on my association with an educational institution on the south side of this city, Ringsend Technical Institute.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what led him astray.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to congratulate him on his appointment and to welcome him here in his official capacity. I would like to address two aspects of the Social Welfare Bill 2014. First, I draw attention to the degree to which the Bill recognises the sacrifices and huge efforts made by ordinary people in keeping faith with this Government's correct economic strategy, which has clearly worked across all measurements and criteria. I refer, for example, to fiscal management, job creation, consumer confidence and inward investment. The people kept faith with it and made great personal sacrifices in very difficult times. The wonderful thing about the Bill before the House is that it rewards and recognises the people's effort, sacrifice and faith for the first time.

I would like to mention some of the headline features of the Bill. The increase of €5 in the rate of child benefit will increase the monthly payment from €130 to €135. This is a recognition of the submission made by the Children's Rights Alliance, which reported that 18.8% of children and young people under the age of 18 are currently at risk of poverty and 9.9% of them are currently living in poverty. The incremental restoration of the Christmas bonus - this year's increment is a significant 25% - is another great recognition of the sacrifices made by the people over recent years. It means a great deal to old people who want to buy presents for their darling grandchildren and their other family members at Christmas. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, and the Tánaiste to ensure this wonderful initiative continues next year in order that we can get back to the full bonus. That would be good.

I would like to applaud the Tánaiste on a remarkable achievement of this Government that is being continued. I refer to the retention of core social welfare rates in the middle of the deepest recession - our Great Depression. I also recognise the increase in the living alone allowance, which is another new thing in this budget. The increase of 3,000 in the number of people participating in the JobsPlus initiative will bring the total number of participants to 6,000. Some €12 million is being provided for the introduction of a new employment service to be known as JobPath, which I will discuss in a minute.

The provision of an additional €2 million for the school meals initiative is a hugely important piece of social engineering and social justice. Although it might be missed by many people because it seems trivial, it will have an impact. I am a teacher by profession and I have taught in all types of schools and areas. I am aware that the school meals initiative needs expansion and should be expanded. As we address this Social Welfare Bill, I commend to the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, and the Cabinet in general the extension for a second year of the early childhood education initiative, which is a wonderful thing.

I want to address the Government's big achievement in the Department of Social Protection since it came into office. In addition to retaining core rates and maintaining the dignity of vulnerable people by supporting them, it has changed what was known paternalistically in the past as the dole - a handout to mollify people and keep them quiet - by introducing job activation measures that give jobseekers an opportunity to seek work.

11 o’clock

The great success has been JobBridge and the number of people who have found employment and returned to dignity through it. While there are little aberrations and malpractices, there are also supervisory dimensions. JobBridge has been a great Government initiative.

When we entered into office, 7,000 jobs were being lost per month. Now, 5,000 jobs are being created per month and unemployment has decreased to 11%. We have moved from the concept of unemployment to one of job activation. The back-to-work family dividend that will come into play in January 2015 as a consequence of this legislation will assist families in availing of employment opportunities and moving off social welfare. They will be able to retain their increases in qualified child payments of €29.80 per week for up to two years after leaving social welfare. This is a great initiative. I am also gladdened by the number of extra people on JobsPlus.

I would like to have developed my next point further, but I must recognise the constraints of time. I am keen for us to work hard on the job activation front, including training and interviewing people in a supportive rather than aggressive or intimidatory way to find their strengths and give them opportunities to return to the workforce and regain their dignity and self-confidence. This is critical.

I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence. This Bill is great legislation and we should be proud of it. The Bill's hallmark is how it tells the people that, having made sacrifices, now is the time for payback. We have begun the process of restoring the fortunes of people who made great efforts for our country.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. It is great to see him in the chair and flying the flag for Dublin South-East, or Dublin Bay South, in government. Many of the points that I want to make-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Deputy like to fly it himself?

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would love to. I thank Deputy McGuinness. Many of the points that I want to make on this legislation are not positive, but I do not want the Minister of State to believe they are directed at him. I made them during the motion on the budget three weeks ago. This is a Second Stage debate on social protection legislation to put into effect those budgetary decisions, but it is not a debate at all because the decisions have already been made. We are just going through the motions, which forms part of the reason that I have a problem with how the Dáil operates. The decisions were not even made by the Cabinet. Rather, they were made before they went to the Cabinet. I do not know why we continue to stand over practices in which we do not believe. Labour Party Ministers who are not members of the Economic Management Council, EMC, have criticised its operations and how it sidelines the Cabinet. They are right. We have a Cabinet Government, which means no fewer than seven Ministers. This may not be the most efficient way to run a Government, but if one believes that, one should change the Constitution, which puts the Cabinet at the centre of the Government. The Cabinet is the body with the authority to make decisions. However, when it comes to matters like the budgetary process, we have seen how even the Cabinet has been sidelined.

Labour Party Ministers also do not agree with the idea of a budget day on which we spend one day per year announcing all of these secrets, as they were described, to the country. Those Ministers called this crazy, which has been repeated at the Committee of Public Accounts. Why do we continue doing it? These are processes we want to change, yet we are not changing them. To answer the question of why knowledge and power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few people, it leads to bad decision-making. Consider 2008 and 2010. Why should we not debate in detail budgetary figures on a year-end basis, get them costed independently as Deputies and go through the different ideas, possibilities and permutations before we make a decision? That is what the Dáil is meant to do. Consider the eight years that led up to the financial collapse and what the Dáil did not do.

Why are these debates important? In just a short time, and based on economic data covering what was also a short period, we went from taking €2 billion out of the economy to investing €1 billion. We have not discussed that decision at all. It smacks of a mentality of, if we have it, we will spend it. We know where that got us. I want to go into the details and examine the consequences of the decisions we are making, but what is the point if I cannot even be involved in the debate before the decision is taken? It is counter-intuitive. When there is an unexpected buoyancy in the economy that may be temporary, why do we commit that money to permanent spending measures?

Does this Bill signal the end of the reform of our State sector and how it spends money? We have increased child benefit, a universal payment that goes to some of the wealthiest people in the country. How can we stand over that? If the payment were not universal, there would be more money to go to those who need it most. After we commissioned an independent report on whether to continue universal payments, we ignored it. The report recommended continuing universal payments, but at a much lower level and with means-tested increases for those who needed them most. This is what we are supposed to be doing. Before going into government, we discussed how to do things differently, yet we ignored a report that we commissioned. We did the same in the case of Irish Water, which is why we have problems with that body's current structure, including its system of payments.

Consider the back-to-work family dividend. The OECD criticised our level of social welfare payments for acting as a disincentive to people returning to work, yet we increased social welfare spending to achieve just that. It is a perverse logic that the Dáil has not discussed in detail. People may not agree with me, but there is no point in having a Second Stage debate when the decisions have already been made and the only room for amendment is where the Department realises it has overlooked something or made a mistake. That is not the proper approach. In no way can Parliament or Cabinet hold the EMC to account when the process operates in this way.

On a final but positive note, I will refer to some of the labour activation initiatives that the Minister of State has been undertaking. He announced one recently during an evening with a chamber of commerce. They are fantastic. He is considering a new website and using technology to provide to employers the live curricula vitae of people who are trying to return to work. It is another brilliant idea, one that I hope is implemented quickly. Positive initiatives like that one show what new people can do in their roles to break old thinking.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join Deputy Eoghan Murphy's comments on how we set out the budget strategy. We debate measures after the event. For example, we are debating the Social Welfare Bill after the announcements have been made in the budget. It is true that for years, every Government and Opposition has called for reform in the House, but we never seem to get it. There is a need for reform, but this Government did not bring it about despite being mandated to do so. That is a pity. Had there been reform, the budgetary process could have been fed into by Deputies who deal with matters in their constituencies every week that show up the faults of a system. If Deputies could use that knowledge in a meaningful debate that brought about real policy change, it would be exceptionally good, not only for the Department, but for the people who found themselves having to engage with social welfare. Instead, the budget debate sees a tinkering with the system - €5 here, a cut there and a change in regulation somewhere else - but no strategic thinking on where we are going with social welfare, job activation and care for pensioners and the marginalised. Not all of us will march to the same frantic drumbeat. There will always be those who must be looked after in society. If we are to acknowledge this fact, we should do so efficiently and well.

I question the four people who run the Cabinet and the country. I consider their qualifications and the last time they created a job or were on the front line looking into the abyss and had nothing. It was a long time ago. Without personalising the debate, the Taoiseach has been in the House for a long number of years.

The same is true of the Tánaiste, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister for Finance. I do not suggest they do not hear things at their constituency clinics that influence them one way or the other. However, this simply is not a good way in which to do business. People are making decisions who, quite frankly, are not able to be influenced by debate in this Chamber and it is meaningless unless this can be the case.

I acknowledge it is the job of Government party Members to pick out the best and to deliver the message for the various parties. Members of my party did it when they were on the Government side of the House as well. However, if one considers the measures in the context of what I see in my clinics, there is a huge delay in the processing of applications. For example, in the case of carer's allowance applications, six or nine months could elapse before someone gets an application for a carer's allowance through. Moreover, if it is refused and goes to review, appeal or oral hearing, it will take much longer. I have seen cases in the system that have been there for more than 12 months. At times, those who really are entitled to such an allowance are refused it for some unknown reason. These people have made a good case, have presented their medical information and are looking after someone, but yet they are put through the wringer excessively in respect of qualifying for carer's allowance. The same applies if one considers the appeals system itself. It simply goes on forever and at the end of that line, one is dealing with someone who has no money, probably is in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance and probably is entitled to what he or she is getting. Consequently, I seek an audit of all these applications, how they are processed, how long it takes and how quickly they then can be turned around into an efficient and positive return for the client who has been forced by circumstances to seek social welfare benefits. Were the Minister of State to set his mind to this and were he to achieve it, he would be doing a great deal for those who are marginalised and have nothing. If, at the end of the process, the answer was the applicant was not entitled to the benefit for which he or she had applied, at least then the applicant knows. However, it is just unforgivable to leave people in limbo and to have them go back into the system repeatedly. I do not suggest it is the fault of the Minister of State; it is the fault of Members here in this House that they do not recognise it and then, if necessary, force the people on the Minister of State's right, that is, the departmental officials, to bring about the appropriate changes in policies that will make the system more efficient.

Another point about efficiency that is evident at the meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts is that each year, millions of euro are lost to the Exchequer because of what the Department of Social Protection puts down as being a fraud or errors in the system. If a business had fraud and errors that were losing €500 million through that process each year, it would be bust. The Department of Social Protection, like many other Departments does not learn from the mistakes. It does not learn that this is how something happened and, therefore, it should apply itself to ensure it does not happen again. How many more people in receipt of social welfare benefits would be satisfied with an increased benefit or would benefit from a saving in respect of these losses? The Department would have €500 million more to ease the pain and the burden on those who are in receipt of social welfare benefits. Sometimes, it is not a question of securing the increase that is the challenge or the success story; it actually is taking the system and making it work more efficiently and for those who must engage with it because of their circumstances. I ask the Minister of State to give consideration to this point.

All Members have heard about the difficulties arising in respect of the JobBridge scheme. I came across a number of people who were employed in a sporting area who were let go and subsequently replaced by a person from the JobBridge scheme. That does not achieve anything and is just a waste of time. It may be nice to massage the figures afterwards and, incidentally, all Governments do that. This is not a direct criticism of the present Administration as it has been done in the past. However, the Government would not allow this to happen in respect of the establishment of new businesses. One could not get a grant from a county enterprise board if a similar business was nearby, as that would be called displacement. Yet, there is a willingness to tolerate displacement in the JobBridge area. This has not been thought out and it is not working to the extent it should to bring the success to the scheme that was planned for initially. It would be worthwhile to consider this issue.

The issue of domiciliary care allowance has been raised here and, in particular, women came to Leinster House and raised it. While I acknowledge some effort has been made to streamline it and make it more effective, many more simple things could be done that would deal with this issue and would bring about an understanding from the applicant as to what is required in an application. The simple comparison made by the mothers and those who were concerned about the domiciliary care allowance when they visited Leinster House was that were the Department of Social Protection to take the application form used in the United Kingdom and use it here, it would simplify matters and would allow them to focus on what the Department really was examining. That is what they sought and suggested, but I must tell the Minister of State and his officials that they left Leinster House seriously disappointed that the engagement they were allowed to have with the Minister and the system did not yield for them the simple changes they perceived to be necessary to make life easier for them and others in the context of the application. Again, this reverts to systems and to an application form.

This is similar to the time when the rental allowance scheme was being operated by the Department of Social Protection. When the figures began to reach an almighty high, no one paused to say this scheme was not fulfilling the housing needs where it should be. No one thought of diverting the funds in question to building local authority houses and giving people secure homes. Everything just went on in the same vein and nothing really has changed that much. The Government now has put in place the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme, which is the same nonsense with a different description. It is the same thing. When will we get around to having a reform that gives local authority houses to people, thereby giving them a sense of a home and a sense of place? It would also give people a sense that the Government actually cares for them, because the main message to come out of a lot of these issues is the Government does not care - be it the previous Government or its predecessors - because people do not perceive the necessary reform that would have a positive impact on their lives. Members owe it to those who elected them to stand by the mandate the Government was given, which is for reform and greater efficiencies.

Before the budget, Members spoke of those who were self-employed. They came through the good times, paid their taxes, were employed and were central to the economy. Now however, they do not get anything from the economy. They are forced to leave these shores and seek employment elsewhere. We are losing an entire generation, a lot of whom were enthusiastic entrepreneurs, some of whom were employed by others but in the same vein as an entrepreneur, and they are gone. An entire generation of knowledge and experience has departed from these shores simply because the system would not look after them. Moreover, they were not lifers but wanted access to the system while they got on their feet, after which they would be back creating employment. Members are looking to the small to medium-sized enterprise sector to create the same level of employment as previously, namely, almost 1 million give or take, and now those people have left and are gone.

The greatest con trick in the budget and what has happened subsequently is the Government gave small increases.

Small as they are, those increases are welcome, but taking the money back in the form of water charges is just a joke. In its current form, Irish Water needs to generate a certain level of income from water charges that will allow it to pay both the wages of its bloated complement of staff and the extras and top-ups it has introduced for them and also to pay for the services of consultants. Deputy O'Dowd is aware of what is going on within Irish Water and he was correct in highlighting it. One cannot create a super-quango such as Irish Water which is going to feed off the unfortunates in society who do not have anything in order to obtain its income and then state that an entire raft of people will not be obliged to pay water charges. How does the Government propose to balance the books in this regard, particularly if it is going to exempt certain individuals from paying or give them a number of credits? Somebody must pay for Irish Water. I suggest that the Government abolish the latter and not charge people for water. It should instead consider how the open taxation system which previously held sway might be restructured. As the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, is aware, Europe is telling us that we must raise cash and deal with our loans off the books. In order to do this, one must create an entity. We refer to such entities as quangos and the one we established was Irish Water. What is wrong with county councils dealing with leaks in the system, etc.? If one contacts Irish Water to report a burst pipe, it will be fixed by staff from one's local friendly county council. What is happening now is that we are being obliged to pay for an extra level of bureaucracy which is just not needed. Nobody identified either the quantity of leaks within the system or the number of pipes which must be replaced.

What has all of this to do with the Social Welfare Bill? The answer is that those in receipt of social welfare payments are going to be obliged to pay water charges. The Minister of State's party is obliged to appease its supporters, which is what the Labour Party should be all about. I respect the input of the Labour Party into this Government's work but its members must be stronger, they must represent the people and they need to tell the fat cats to whom they often referred when they were on the Opposition side of the House to get off the bus. Those so-called fat cats are not doing the job they were appointed to do. That job could be done more efficiently and at less cost elsewhere. Those are the facts.

When one considers the increases people received in the budget and then examines the position with regard to the taxes - water tax, property tax etc. - they are obliged to pay, one must ask how they can afford to live. I have met older people who are not putting food on the table in order to make ends meet. These individuals are members of a generation of men and women who like to pay their bills. I am sure that, like me, the Minister of State has been informed by such people at his clinics that they would not like to die owing money. We are creating a situation whereby, in light of the establishment of the fair deal scheme and everything else, they will die owing money. Is there no humanity or compassion in the system at all? Are we simply striding towards the European model where everyone is a number and where interventions by public representatives are considered a nuisance? It will only be when we, as public representatives, take charge of policy and force it into place and actually begin to represent the people who elected us that we will garner more respect and be in a position to respond to the needs of society.

In the context of the small things, I wish to refer to alarms and the telephone allowance for the elderly. These are things which make them safe in their homes. Do we not understand what we have done to these people? We have forced them to apply for medical cards through the system that has been put in place only for them to be informed that their applications have not been received. They must then go through the whole rigamarole again of completing what is a very long form and obtaining doctors' letters and resubmitting their applications. Those applications are then either refused or placed under review and the people involved are obliged to lodge appeals. In the name of God, what are we doing to those we represent? These people have served this country for generations. They worked harder than we have ever worked and they saw bad times of a type we have never seen.

We call the country in which we live a republic. The Minister of State is a republican and so am I. Would he treat his people in the way I have described? If he is a republican, he should not. Would a republican dip his or her hand into the pockets of citizens and take money out of them? I do not believe so. We will be celebrating the centenary of the Easter Rising in 2016. Is ours the type of country for which those who took part in the Rising died? I do not believe it to be. The country they wanted would have been one in which the common good and people and their homes would have been central and which would have been willing to support those who are marginalised and elderly. All I want of this Parliament is for it to ensure that the elderly and those who are marginalised will be looked after. I am also seeking that those in government should fulfil the first responsibility of Government, namely, to care for the people and ensure they are safe. Governments have failed in that responsibility. They have failed to keep the people safe. As a result, elderly people throughout the country are terrorised not by the fear that their homes may be broken into but as a result of the fact that they do not count anymore and their belief that the Government is after them. This big State of Ireland is frightening the life out of its citizens, which is a disgrace. This has been happening for so long that we do not even notice it. We are scaring the living daylights out of people who are on waiting lists or in hospital and elderly individuals who want just a little money, comfort and an acknowledgement of their plight. However, we are running away from them.

The Labour Party has always been respected in Irish society as a result of its efforts to defend those who are marginalised and less well off. I urge the Minister of State and his party colleagues to put the pressure on within Government and to remember the people who elected them and who they represent.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened with interest to Deputy McGuinness's contribution. I agree with him regarding the issues affecting our society that need to be addressed. Obviously, I would not agree with all the prescriptions he offered but I concur with him that the need to care for people who are less well off, who are ill or who have families must be central to our society. That is what the Government is trying to do with this Bill, particularly in the context of the increase in child benefit. Notwithstanding the fact that the amount of money involved will be small, this is the first occasion in a significant number of years that support for families and children will be increased. That is a good start. The living alone allowance will also be increased and the Christmas bonus will be paid at a rate of 25%. We are not yet in a position to restore the bonus in its entirety but we are certainly making a move in the right direction. When we entered office three years ago, the unemployment rate stood at 15.3%. It has now fallen to 11%. As more people return to work and find themselves in a position to better sustain their families, it is only right that whatever money is available be used to support those who are unemployed to return to work also. We must support and encourage those who are less well off than us. In the context of democracy, that is the proper route to take.

Members of different political parties on the Opposition side of the House often complain about our social welfare system. I accept that it has many faults.

However, it is not at fault in the sense that it is a better system than the one in the North. Notwithstanding the concerns of older people, they are better off in the South than in the North, and our support systems are better.

I have always said, both in opposition and in government, that the Department of Social Protection is the most efficient Department I have encountered. When I was sitting in the seat now occupied by the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, he had some nice things to say about me so I will start with him today. His Department is important and very responsive, accountable and focused. I was recently invited to the Department's local office to see the changes it is bringing about to help the unemployed, encourage them to come in for an interview and have their CVs examined, and determine how to encourage them to get a new qualification, perhaps in an area they never thought about. It is a question of the joining up of social elements and working out what is best for the people by changing. We must all change and help to bring about that change. It is a case of providing new resources in a respectful way.

I do not know whether the Minister of State remembers the day of the hatch. I remember people going to the hatch to do their business. I very much objected to that. Now one is interviewed while sitting down in a private space, and one can communicate with the officials. That is how it should be. Notwithstanding that, there are serious delays in the system.

I agree that appeals times are far too long. One can apply for a review, and I acknowledge that the Department accepts new information given to it at any stage, even if the relevant date has passed by. The Department is available to listen to one's case, read the relevant documentation and make judgments and changes when one can show they would benefit those concerned.

My staff recently brought to my attention the fact that people on long-term illness benefit cannot get the fuel allowance. My office and constituents believe this needs to be reviewed. If one is on long-term illness benefit, one should benefit from the fuel allowance. That one cannot do so is an anomaly.

A good aspect of the current reforms is the housing assistance payment to people who are looking for housing. The system in this regard is administered through the local authority. I welcome the payment because this is the first time that constituents working for a very low income can and will be considered for increased financial supports. That is a very positive move because the transition from unemployment to work is very difficult for families. If they can get financial support, which was previously unavailable to them, this will be very welcome.

The question of carers has been raised by other speakers, with whom I agree. The means testing of carers takes a long time. Many of the cases are complex and may not be as simple as we might think at times. However, more resources need to be made available to deal with the applications. It would make a fundamental difference to those being cared for, their families and carers. A significant reduction in the delays is very important.

The Department may not have a role in respect of all my views on the role of the community welfare officer. The community welfare officer system is excellent. The training, skills and knowledge of community welfare officers, which they clearly demonstrate throughout the country, including in my county, are top class and excellent in every way. I work with community welfare officers every week. A big mistake that has been made is the centralisation of the medical card application system, which resulted in an appalling debacle. When responsibility for applications was removed from the local community welfare office and transferred to some place in Dublin, or wherever it is, it was a bad day for every applicant. The community welfare officer had the necessary skills, knowledge and communication ability, and knew the applicants and their families. The officers were always available to listen to applicants' cases. We all know that it is not a question of making a black-and-white decision in the health system. There are grey areas in that although people may have more money theoretically than they are allowed to have, there can be extenuating circumstances that a community welfare officer would be in a position to judge. Not accounting for such circumstances is the major downside of the administrative decision to centralise the system. It has made it unacceptable to people. When I get on to the medical card authorities, I do not have a problem, but some of my colleagues tell me one can raise no more than three cases per day. I do not receive this complaint about the number of cases I raise but, if I did, I would not accept it from the officer. If the complaint is made, some policy needs to change. I fundamentally believe that getting back to basics and returning to the concept of the community welfare officer is important.

The system for allocating grants to people with disabilities who need to make adjustments to their homes to allow for independent living was the responsibility of the former health boards and is now the responsibility of the local authorities. There needs to be much more flexibility. There is far too much black-and-white thinking in this regard. A simple sit-down shower in somebody's home would make a great difference to one's quality of life. It just seems impossible to get it in many cases. We need an urgent review of the system. It is not necessarily the remit of the Minister of State but it is part of the process of caring for people in their homes to which we need to return.

I welcome the legislation and the changes that are being made. The legislation is a start. It is easy to be critical and say it is not enough. Of course, it is not enough; it will never be enough but at least there is social change and we are giving an opportunity to the less well-off, unemployed, those with young children and those living alone to have better quality of life. The change is small but it will be significant. As our economy improves, I hope we will increase the amount of money to which people are entitled to live out their lives in a proper way. As the awful, appalling misery that was visited upon the State by the previous Government fades into the background, quality of life will improve for everybody.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I formally congratulate my friend, colleague and former neighbour, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, on his appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Social Protection. It is apt that he has this role because he has experience of unemployment. His life experience makes him particularly well suited to the role he is playing. I am glad he has responsibility for job activation because we need to move away from the old handout mentality that was characteristic of the social welfare system. It should be a case of a hand up rather than a handout so we can help people move towards employment rather than just languish in unemployment, which has such a detrimental effect on both individuals and communities. The more we do that, the better.

With regard to job activation measures, assuming that the unemployment rate will continue to decrease, we will need to examine very carefully whether measures that continue to be in place will continue to be fit for purpose. In the past, many schemes were left in place long after their sell-by date. We need to ensure programmes such as JobBridge remain appropriate and are not being abused by employers.

While there is clear evidence of a majority moving from JobBridge into full employment, there are also complaints about those on JobBridge being abused and the scheme being used merely to fill a job that should properly be filled by a paid person. That culture needs to permeate the Department.

If I can also address the move towards the housing assistance payment scheme, which is a good scheme, the fundamental issue in terms of housing is to construct more housing, whether social or private, particularly in the cities. The housing assistance payment scheme is a good one in the sense that it helps to remove a poverty trap but it will need to be watched carefully because I suspect that there will be considerable resistance to it from tenants.

There are many aspects of the budget for social welfare where for the first time in seven years we have seen increases, and some of those are very welcome. Obviously, even though it is a small increase, it is welcome that there is a €5 increase in child benefit. I particularly welcome the extra €2 million for the school meals programme. From what I am told by school principals, it would be beneficial if that could be pushed out as much as possible because there is no doubt that school children who are hungry do less well than those who are sufficiently fed. It is a fairly obvious point but it contributes in the long run towards preparing people for being able to work. The more the scheme is improved over the years, the better.

It is worth noting that in spite of the trauma that this country has gone through, for most we managed to maintain the basic unemployment rate at €188 per week. That is in considerable contrast to our neighbours across the water where one is talking about a rate is less than £65 a week. It is worth noting that we managed to do that.

In conclusion, I also support the remarks Deputy Eoghan Murphy made on the Economic Management Council. It is time to go back to regular Cabinet Government.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will concentrate in the limited time available on two issues that need reform. The first issue is in the area of jobseeker's benefit for the self-employed. It is something I feel strongly about. I was self-employed before I went into politics. We need to have parity of treatment. If the business of someone who is self-employed fails, it is a traumatic time. In that situation, the person does not qualify for jobseeker's benefit and must apply for jobseeker's allowance which can take a considerable amount of time. The issue has been examined by the Department and by the Minister over time. In terms of being reforming, we need to examine putting in place a system whereby the self-employed can qualify for jobseeker's benefit. At present, the PAYE taxpayer can qualify for jobseeker's benefit based on the contributions he or she earns. If there are more than 260 contributions paid, one gets jobseeker's benefit over nine months and if there are fewer than 260, he or she gets it over six months. Perhaps we need to put something in place for jobseeker's benefit for the self-employed for three or six months. It is something we need to examine. I would ask that it would be reviewed urgently by the Minister and her Department.

The second key area which comes up quite often at present is PAYE taxpayers being able to claim jobseeker's benefit. If someone has lost a job or where, for instance, the number of hours in which he or she is on the job are reduced, currently one can only claim jobseeker's benefit as an employee if one is unemployed for four or more days per week, which translates into working for three or fewer days per week. If one goes above the latter threshold, one does not qualify for jobseeker's benefit. I have dealt with cases recently, including someone who was in a job working 30 hours a week. The employer decided to reduce the worker's hours to eight hours per week, but wished the employee to come in at least an hour per day and the employee was working over the five days. The employee did not qualify for jobseeker's benefit. It is completely unfair. It is a draconian measure. We need to examine how we can reform the system to allow such employees to base it on hours as distinct from days. In the case of this individual, he did not qualify for family income supplement, FIS, because he was not working the requisite hours and he could not qualify for jobseeker's benefit because he was working more than three days per week, even though that was only roughly an hour or an hour and a half per day. Effectively, he was forced to give up his job because he had a young family.

We must look at the way the system works currently. I would advocate two simple straightforward measures which relate to both employees and the self-employed. For PAYE workers, it is a relatively straightforward measure. We need to change jobseeker's benefit from being assessed on a daily basis where one may work only three days or less, which would equate to 20 to 24 hours per week, to where one cannot work more than 20 or 21 hours, or whatever, per week. Given the trends, one should translate it from days into hours and allow workers remain in employment. Regarding the self-employed, if we are looking to adopt an entrepreneurial culture where citizens will create jobs, both for themselves and for others, we must allow them the same treatment as a PAYE taxpayer. We need to examine putting a structure in place whereby the self-employed can qualify for jobseeker's benefit, make contributions towards that and be given such facility so that if their business fails, they are not placed in the dramatic position where they are unable to provide for themselves and their families. I would ask that those two simple measures be taken on board by the Minister and implemented. It is something I feel strongly about for my constituents in Limerick.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note Deputy McGuinness asked, "Would a republican dip his or her hand into the pockets of citizens"? If that republican was a member of Fianna Fáil, then he or she certainly would. I am not a republican; I am an international socialist. My criticism of the Government is that it continued the policies of Fianna Fáil in taking money out of the pockets of citizens in order to pay back debts that were never ours in the first place. We cannot discuss the budget without putting it in the context of the debacle around Irish Water and what is going on in the economy in general. We had a discussion here this morning about the Defence Forces and frightening statistics that 20% of soldiers in the Defence Forces are so poorly paid that they must rely on FIS payments coming out of the Department of Social Protection's budget. In effect, the race to the bottom in terms of wages not only in the private sector, but in the public sector as well, is putting an enormous strain on social protection in order to bring people up to a certain level of decency or baseline.

I will not repeat points that have been well articulated. We heard terrible stories of citizens who are in the category of the working poor, and people who are simply sick of managing. People are working harder and longer than they were a number of years ago for less pay. They are being told by the Taoiseach and other members of the Government that the economy is improving, that things are getting better, but they do not feel that is the case. The payment of a new water bill has been foisted onto people's shoulders.

I agree with Deputy McGuinness’s point that Irish Water should be abolished and that we should fund water infrastructure through general taxation. I would be more in favour of taxation being increased on high earners and corporations. In the context of budgets and not being able to do enough for people on social protection, it is ironic that we heard this morning the debunking of the myth that the hundreds of millions of euro going into Irish Water will improve conservation. The regulator confirmed statistics showing that the introduction of water charges will not have an impact on water conservation and that the reduction will be approximately 6%. That confirms analysis done previously which showed that the installation of water meters was not an economically viable position, yet the Government and taxpayer are underwriting Irish Water’s investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of euro to facilitate a useless process that will not in any way contribute to water conservation. The reason I posit the argument now is that those hundreds of millions of euro could have been used to repair the water infrastructure, which is necessary, and could also have been used to ease the burden of people on social protection payments.

In many cases the contributors to this debate on the Bill deal with not so much as to what it contains, as to what is not in it and what should have been in it. Other Deputies referred to the treatment of carers in the lifetime of the Government, which has been reprehensible. Given that we had greater flexibility in the budget, increased payments together with the restoration of the full respite care grant should have been made to the 40,000 full-time carers. Although the respite care grant is a payment that is supposed to be used to provide people with respite, everybody knows that because of the cumulative cutbacks families have already endured, the grant is not always used for that purpose, but in many instances it is used for essentials such as to pay for heating, electricity and in some cases food, clothes and other such items. Everybody knows stories about families having to sell their cars and not being able to turn on their heating because of the cuts in payments. It is a false economy because the health of carers is then impacted and when they cannot do the job they too will become a cost to the Exchequer, apart from the human cost to those people who play such an important role in society.

Another area on which the Minister made great play was the change to the system of supports for one-parent families. She said in 2012 that seven was too young an age to consider removing the one-parent family support and that her goal was to bring us up to Scandinavian models of child care. If the Minister agrees that seven is too young for the payments to stop then why is that the case and where are the measures to bring in affordable child care? Nobody realistically expected the Scandinavian model to be delivered but why not at the least allow for the benefit of tax relief in the budget to off-set child care costs? There was nothing in that regard. Unless the situation is addressed then the poverty endured by one-parent families, who are primarily women, will continue. We should note that Ireland, along with the United States, has the highest child care costs in the world and the highest birth rate in Europe but we are not dealing with the issue or the level of child poverty that exists.

Another issue not addressed in the Bill, but one of which the Minister is well aware, relates to pensioners. The pension levy is having an impact on people’s income in their retirement years. Other changes introduced in previous social welfare and pensions Bills under the lifetime of the Government mean that currently measures affecting some pension schemes will have a significant detrimental impact on the livelihood of citizens. I refer in particular to the aviation pension scheme-----

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and the 15,000 members of the scheme, some of them active contributors and others who have left their employment whose pension is deferred and others still who are already in receipt of a pension payment. We would all probably agree there is a crisis in funding pension schemes. However, what is not agreed is how one deals with the crisis and who is responsible for it. The Government could introduce measures to address the situation in the context of the Bill. Members of the Opposition will push strongly for changes to the Bill on Committee Stage in order to deal with this inequality. The problem must be addressed because if we do not deal with it under the Bill that will mean in six weeks’ time, in the new year, thousands of existing pensioners will be subjected to a six-week loss in earnings on top of the other cutbacks. Some people on deferred pensions will see a decimation of their livelihood. That is not good enough.

This is not the fault of the people concerned so why should they bear the cost? They had a reasonable and legitimate expectation that they would have a certain standard of living on their retirement. Membership of the scheme was a condition of their employment. They could not get out of it and they had no choice in the matter. Through no fault of their own they potentially face their livelihood being decimated, yet their colleagues in the United States and in Britain who also work for the national airline did not have to endure the cut. Too much has been done to protect the employer in this situation and to expect pensioners to bear the cost. We can deal with the issue on Committee Stage.

I accept there was a funding problem with the scheme. However, the primary blame for the problem rests on the shoulders of the employers. It is not just me who says that. The High Court has already adjudicated on these matters. Mr. Justice Murphy deemed the Irish Airlines Superannuation Scheme to be a contingent creditor in terms of Aer Lingus when the company tried previously to move money around. The court ruled that Aer Lingus owed the pension scheme more than €500 million. What the company is putting into the scheme now as part of the new deal is not a fraction of the money required yet the company is highly profitable and benefitted from the exit of thousands of employees before their normal retirement date. It is now expecting those people to bear the cost for what was a legitimate responsibility on its part.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a shame.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear. It is outrageous.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the major contributory factors is the appalling investment decisions made by the trustees of the pension scheme, whom the Government is seeking to further empower. To put it as mildly and politely as I can, some of the decisions made by those trustees were at best ill-judged, ill-timed and very peculiar. They sold off €1.4 billion of assets as part of a freeze and de-risk strategy at a time when property portfolios were increasing. Properties they sold off at rock bottom prices increased in value very shortly afterwards. Those who paid the price for that are deferred and existing pensioners and those who are still actively contributing to the pension schemes at the moment. That really is not good enough. The reason those groups are being disproportionately impacted upon is because of changes we made to previous legislation. We will be pushing the issue on Committee Stage. It is regrettable that the Government has not done it. I hope the Minister will table amendments in that regard on Committee Stage in order that we can address the issue.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.