David Norris (Independent)

As I have a personal fondness for and appreciation of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Hanafin, I usually welcome her to the House. However, I cannot give this Bill an enthusiastic or wholehearted welcome. I would like to pick up on an interesting remark made by Senator Butler who bravely attempted to welcome it. I made an important point in another part of the building during a discussion on compensation tribunals, with specific reference to the Magdalen laundry victims. When people talk about the liability of the State in this context, I usually argue that there is really no such thing as the State in this sense. It is a question of taking money from taxpayers to compensate for the combined misdoings of the church and the State. This is not some abstract resource that belongs to a curious institution in the sky. This is our money - the money of the people. While the Minister is right to mention that it is limited, I do not find myself in sympathy with some aspects of the Government's approach. I will speak about its approach to disability, for example. I am not convinced by the argument that people have been massaged, protected, buffered and cushioned by decreases in the consumer price index, etc.

When the House discussed the budget last week, I said child benefit should be taxed or means-tested. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, had said this could not be done for legal and logistical reasons. I asked last week what those reasons were, but I was not told. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs made an effort to explain the matter today. I listened to an interesting debate on the radio the other evening. Dr. Garret FitzGerald and others made the point that information on means testing was stored in various Departments and was particularly concentrated in a couple of Departments. It is already available as a central resource - it is a question of linking it. It does not stack up as one of the reasons. I suggest the real reason is political, rather than economic.

The Minister referred on two occasions to the reduced rates that would apply to "jobseekers of any age who unreasonably refuse offers of training, education or a job." I remind her that the word "unreasonable" does not appear in this legislation. I do not believe it is used in the principal Act either. I would like her to explain to the House - perhaps she can get her advisers to examine the matter - her use of words such as "unreasonable" and "unsuitable". Why should people take jobs that are neither reasonable nor suitable? The Minister accepted a principle that is not set out in the Bill by referring to it twice. I would like to ask her a direct question. If my suspicion is right and it is not included in the Bill, will she accept an amendment along the lines of what she has said to the House? She is morally bound to accept such an amendment. She then referred in her speech to welfare fraud, which is an interesting and serious problem. I also saw the programme and, while I have no doubt it was touched up or sexed up - whatever they call it - I believe there were significant losses in that regard.

To consider child benefit in detail, the Minister quite rightly stated:

Some families rely on it to buy basics like food and clothes. For many women, it makes it possible for them to work outside the home by helping with child care costs.

Hello. Was this what it was intended for? I do not think so. That is a justification for cutting it, not for supporting it. This is a moment when we should look very rationally at these issues. Perhaps arguments can be produced to support the view that we want to give money, not for the children, but so that women can go out and work. However, it is not for the children. There is a crisis in logic in this regard. The Minister continued: "even for women in high income families, it may be the only money that is paid directly to them". Well, break my heart. I am not bothered about people in high income families. It is up to the families to sort out those matters, not the taxpayer. While I am talking about taxes, I come back to my original argument that this is old age pensioners' money paid into taxes. To hell with the high income families. I am not the slightest bit concerned about them.

The Minister stated: "Over the past 12 years, this Government has delivered unprecedented increases in welfare rates", and she goes on to list various categories. I agree that the Government did this. Why would it not? The country was booming. However, the cruellest thing is to give these advances to people and then parade and laud them - the Minister should have heard her colleague, Senator Donie Cassidy, on this point day after day in the House, praising the Government. That makes it even more cruel to whip it away from them when they become used to it. If they had never got it, they would be better off now.

The Minister then stated:

I appreciate that it is important to consider not just the overall change in the consumer price index but also the impact that this may have on different groups. A technical analysis carried out by the Department of Finance...

Again, I say "Hello". Why not an independent analysis? This is why the Government so mischievously, nastily and dangerously dismantled all those organisations that spoke out on behalf of the vulnerable and disadvantaged. I would have believed these figures if they had come from an independent Combat Poverty Agency. I do not believe them from the Department of Finance. Apart from anything else, the Department of Finance has got practically nothing right in the past few years, including its own estimates.

The Minister also referred to "unreasonable refusal" on page 10 of her speech. I would like her to take that point on board.

I welcome that existing claimants and young people with dependent children are excluded from the cuts. I wonder, however, what is the real justification for cutting the payments of 20 to 21 year old jobseekers. I am not convinced these people are irresponsible or need to be herded by the State. It is important the Minister would have clear evidence in this regard, including in regard to the consumer price index. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to state that the price of, for example, kitchen towels, bread or milk had dropped by so much. These are the products that people buy. A bland statement that nobody believes from the Department of Finance is of no earthly use.